Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

[admin]

Charles Grant (British East India Company)
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/25/21


Charles Grant

Charles Grant (Teàrlach Grannd in Scottish Gaelic) (16 April[1] 1746 – 31 October 1823), was a British politician influential in Indian and domestic affairs who, motivated by his evangelical Christianity, championed the causes of social reform and Christian mission, particularly in India. He served as Chairman of the British East India Company, and as a member of parliament (MP), and was an energetic member of the Clapham Sect.[2] The "Clapham Sect" were a group of social activists who spoke out about the moral imperative to end slavery.[3] Henry Thornton founder of the Clapham sect regarded Grant as his closest friend, after Wilberforce, and Grant planned and paid for a house called 'Glenelg' on Henry's estate in Battersea. It was a twin to, and lay near to the house built on the same estate for Wilberforce after his marriage, the location of which is marked by a plaque at No.111 Broomwood Road,[4][5] west of that section of Battersea Rise now called Clapham Common West Side. Grant later moved to live in Russell Square.[2][6][7]

Life

Grant was born at the farmhouse of Aldourie, Inverness-shire, Scotland on the same day his father, Alexander Grant (known as 'The Swordsman'), was fighting for the Jacobites, against the British Crown, at the Culloden. His father was severely wounded but survived, joined a Highland regiment which the government raised for service in America and died at Havana in 1762, of fever he contracted during the siege of Havana. Charles Grant's mother was Margaret MacBean, daughter of Donald Macbean Esq., Tacksman (tenant) of Aldourie in the parish of Dores, descended from the Macbeans of Kinchyle.[8][9][10] However, Charles Grant himself was one of the growing number of Scots who prospered in the service of the British Empire. In 1767, Grant travelled to India to take up a military position. Over subsequent years, he rose in the ranks of the British East India Company. Initially, he became superintendent over its trade in Bengal. Then, in 1787, having first acquired a personal fortune through silk manufacturing in Malda, Lord Cornwallis the Governor-General appointed Grant as a member of the East India Company's board of trade. Grant lived a profligate lifestyle as he climbed through the ranks, but after losing two children to smallpox he underwent a religious conversion. Viewing his life, including his efforts in India, from his new evangelical Christian perspective, moulded his career for the rest of his life.[11]

Grant returned to Britain in 1790 and was elected to Parliament in 1802 for Inverness-shire. He served as an MP until failing health forced him to retire in 1818. However, his relationship with the East India Company did not end. In 1804, he joined the Company's Court of Directors, and in 1805, he became its chairman. He died on 31 October 1823, at his home, No.40 Russell Square, London, at the age of 77.[12][13]

His eldest son, Charles, was born in India and later followed his father into politics, eventually becoming a British peer as Baron Glenelg. His other son, Robert, followed his father into the Indian service and became Governor of Bombay, as well as being a Christian hymn writer.

Indian affairs

In 1792, Grant wrote the tract "Observations on the State of Society among the Asiatic Subjects of Great Britain."[14] In it, he contended that India could be advanced socially and morally by compelling the Company to permit Christian missionaries into India, a view diametrically opposed to the long-held position of the East India Company that Christian missionary work in India conflicted with its commercial interests and should be prohibited. In 1797, Grant presented his essay to the Company’s directors, and then later in 1813, along with the reformer William Wilberforce, successfully to the House of Commons. The Commons ordered its re-printing during the important debates on the renewal of the company's charter.

He was largely responsible for the foundation of East India Company College, which was later erected at Haileybury.

As Chairman of the Company, Grant used his position to sponsor many chaplains to India, among them Claudius Buchanan and Henry Martyn.

Christian humanitarianism

Grant was part of an evangelical Anglican movement of close friends whose notable members included the abolitionist Wilberforce, Zachary Macaulay, John Venn, Henry Thornton, and John Shore, who lived in close proximity around Clapham Common southwest of London. For some years from 1796, Grant himself lived in a large villa called Glenelg in proximity to Wilberforce and Thornton. This 'Clapham sect' welded evangelical theology with the cause of social reform. Both in India and in Britain's Parliament, Grant campaigned for the furtherance of causes of education, social reform, and Christian mission. In 1791, he helped established the Sierra Leone Company, which gave refuge to freed slaves. Also in 1791, as an influential supporter of the abolition of slavery in all its forms, he was elected to the London Abolition Committee.[15] He served as a vice-president of the British and Foreign Bible Society from its establishment in 1804, and also supported the Church Missionary Society and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. As a director of one of the largest businesses of the day, Grant was a remarkably effective social reformer.

Notes

1. Gregorian Calendar 4 April
2. "Grant, Charles (1746-1823)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
3. Tomkins, Stephen, The Clapham Sect: How Wilberforce’s circle changed Britain(Oxford: Lion, 2010)
4. Blue Plaques Guide - 111 Broomwood Road
5. Wikimedia Commons: William Wilberforce - 111 Broomwood Road BatterseaLondon SW11 6JT
6. Survey of London: Battersea (Volumes 50 - chapter 17: 'Between the Commons 1'). Editor: Andrew Saint. Historian: Colin Thom. Published by Yale University Press for English Heritage (2013).
7. Roger Logan, 'Between the Commons: South Battersea’s Formative Years'. Wandsworth Historical Society, Wandsworth Paper 15, 2007
8. The Life of Charles Grant, Sometime Member of Parliament for Inverness-shire and Director of the East India Company. By Henry Morris, Madras Civil Service (retired). London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, W. 1904. (pages 1-3)
9. Francis James Grant: 'The Grants of Corrimony', 1895
10. 'A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire' by John Burke and J. Bernard Burke. 10th Edition (1848) Page 432 'Glenelg'
11. Hindmarsh, Bruce A Long Reach: The Clapham Sect's impact in India—and the world. in 'Christianity Today' Issue 53 1997 [1]
12. 'The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1790-1820, ed. R. Thorne, 1986
13. 'The Annual Biography and Obituary for the Year 1825, Volume IX' (London: Printed for Longman, Hurst, rees, Orme, Brown and Green, Paternoster Row, 1825). Page 25.
14. Extracts may be found on the William Carey University Feb Website (accessed 18 February 2007)
15. Jennings, Judi (1997). The Business of Abolishing the British Slave Trade, 1783–1807. Routledge. pp. 67, 82. ISBN 0714646970.

References

• "Charles Grant Biography". William Carey University website. Retrieved 16 February 2007.
• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Grant, Charles" . Encyclopædia Britannica. 12 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 353.
• Embree, Ainslie (1962). Charles Grant and British Rule in India. George Allen & Unwin.

See also

• Charles Grant - A ship that sailed for the East India Company between 1810 and 1833

External links

• Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by Charles Grant

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

William Wilberforce [1759-1833]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/25/21

-- Ernest Wilberforce [1840-1907], by Wikipedia

-- The Lost Continent, Atlantis; and the Civilization of the Pre-Historic World, by William Wilberforce Juvenal Colville

-- William Wilberforce Juvenal Colville 1859(?)-1917, by Encyclopedia.com

William Wilberforce
by Karl Anton Hickel, c. 1794
Member of Parliament
In office: 31 October 1780 – February 1825
Preceded by: David Hartley
Succeeded by: Arthur Gough-Calthorpe
Constituency: Kingston upon Hull (1780–1784); Yorkshire (1784–1812); Bramber (1812–1825)
Personal details
Born: 24 August 1759, Kingston upon Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, England
Died: 29 July 1833 (aged 73), Belgravia, London, England
Resting place: Westminster Abbey
Political party: Independent
Spouse(s): Barbara Spooner ​(m. 1797)​
Children: Six, including Robert, Samuel, and Henry
Alma mater: St John's College, Cambridge

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833)[1] was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming an independent Member of Parliament (MP) for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he became an evangelical Christian, which resulted in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform.

In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807.

Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as the Society for the Suppression of Vice, British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially controversial legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

In later years, Wilberforce supported the campaign for the complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because of his failing health. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire. Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to his friend William Pitt the Younger.

Early life and education

Wilberforce was born in a house on the High Street of Hull, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England, on 24 August 1759, the only son of Robert Wilberforce (1728–1768), a wealthy merchant, and his wife, Elizabeth Bird (1730–1798). His grandfather, William (1690–1774),[2][3] had made the family fortune in the maritime trade with Baltic countries[4] and in sugar refining.[5] He was a partner in a business that built the Old Sugar House on Lime Street in Hull, which imported raw sugar from slave-based plantations in the West Indies.[6][7] He was twice elected mayor of Hull.[8]


A statue of William Wilberforce outside Wilberforce House, his birthplace in Hull.

Wilberforce was a small, sickly and delicate child with poor eyesight.[9] In 1767, he began attending Hull Grammar School,[10] which at the time was headed by a young, dynamic headmaster, Joseph Milner, who was to become a lifelong friend.[11] Wilberforce profited from the supportive atmosphere at the school, until his father's death in 1768 caused changes in his living arrangements. With his mother struggling to cope, the nine-year-old Wilberforce was sent to a prosperous uncle and aunt with houses in both St James' Place, London, and Wimbledon, at that time a village 7 miles (11 km) south-west of London. He attended an "indifferent" boarding school in Putney for two years. He spent his holidays in Wimbledon, where he grew extremely fond of his relatives.[12] He became interested in evangelical Christianity due to his relatives' influence, especially that of his aunt Hannah, sister of the wealthy Christian merchant John Thornton, a philanthropist and a supporter of the leading Methodist preacher George Whitefield.[1] Wilberforce's staunchly Church of England mother and grandfather, alarmed at these nonconformist influences and at his leanings towards evangelicalism, brought the 12-year-old boy back to Hull in 1771. Wilberforce was heartbroken at being separated from his aunt and uncle.[13] His family opposed a return to Hull Grammar School because the headmaster had become a Methodist, and Wilberforce therefore continued his education at nearby Pocklington School from 1771 to 1776.[14][15] Influenced by Methodist scruples, he initially resisted Hull's lively social life, but, as his religious fervour diminished, he embraced theatre-going, attended balls, and played cards.[16]

In October 1776, at the age of 17, Wilberforce went up to St John's College, Cambridge.[17] The deaths of his grandfather in 1774 and his uncle three years later had left him independently wealthy[18] and as a result he had little inclination or need to apply himself to serious study. Instead he immersed himself in the social round of student life[18][17] and pursued a hedonistic lifestyle, enjoying cards, gambling and late-night drinking sessions – although he found the excesses of some of his fellow students distasteful.[19][20] Witty, generous and an excellent conversationalist, Wilberforce was a popular figure. He made many friends including the more studious future Prime Minister William Pitt.[20][21] Despite his lifestyle and lack of interest in studying, he managed to pass his examinations[22] and was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1781 and a Master of Arts degree in 1788.[23]

Early parliamentary career

Wilberforce began to consider a political career while still at university during the winter of 1779–1780, while he and Pitt frequently watched House of Commons debates from the gallery. Pitt, already set on a political career, encouraged Wilberforce to join him in obtaining a parliamentary seat.[22][24] In September 1780, at the age of twenty-one and while still a student, Wilberforce was elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Kingston upon Hull,[1] spending over £8,000, as was the custom of the time, to ensure he received the necessary votes.[25][26] Free from financial pressures, Wilberforce sat as an independent, resolving to be a "no party man".[1][27] Criticised at times for inconsistency, he supported both Tory and Whig governments according to his conscience, working closely with the party in power, and voting on specific measures according to their merits.[28][29]

Wilberforce attended Parliament regularly, but he also maintained a lively social life, becoming an habitué of gentlemen's gambling clubs such as Goostree's and Boodle's in Pall Mall, London. The writer and socialite Madame de Staël described him as the "wittiest man in England"[30] and, according to Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, the Prince of Wales said that he would go anywhere to hear Wilberforce sing.[31][32]

Wilberforce used his speaking voice to great effect in political speeches; the diarist and author James Boswell witnessed Wilberforce's eloquence in the House of Commons and noted, "I saw what seemed a mere shrimp mount upon the table; but as I listened, he grew, and grew, until the shrimp became a whale."[33] During the frequent government changes of 1781–1784, Wilberforce supported his friend Pitt in parliamentary debates.[34]

In autumn 1783, Pitt, Wilberforce and Edward Eliot (later to become Pitt's brother-in-law), travelled to France for a six-week holiday together.[1][35] After a difficult start in Rheims, where their presence aroused police suspicion that they were English spies, they visited Paris, meeting Benjamin Franklin, General Lafayette, Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, and joined the French court at Fontainebleau.[35][36]

Pitt became Prime Minister in December 1783, with Wilberforce a key supporter of his minority government.[37] Despite their close friendship, there is no record that Pitt offered Wilberforce a ministerial position in that or future governments. This may have been due to Wilberforce's wish to remain an independent MP. Alternatively, Wilberforce's frequent tardiness and disorganisation, as well as his chronic eye problems that at times made reading impossible, may have convinced Pitt that his trusted friend was not ministerial material. Wilberforce never sought office and was never offered one.[38] When Parliament was dissolved in the spring of 1784, Wilberforce decided to stand as a candidate for the county of Yorkshire in the 1784 general election.[1] On 6 April, he was returned as MP for Yorkshire at the age of twenty-four.[39]

Conversion

In October 1784, Wilberforce embarked upon a tour of Europe which would ultimately change his life and determine his future career. He travelled with his mother and sister in the company of Isaac Milner, the brilliant younger brother of his former headmaster, who had been Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge, in the year when Wilberforce first went up. They visited the French Riviera and enjoyed the usual pastimes of dinners, cards, and gambling.[40] In February 1785, Wilberforce returned to London temporarily, to support Pitt's proposals for parliamentary reforms. He rejoined the party in Genoa, Italy, from where they continued their tour to Switzerland. Milner accompanied Wilberforce to England, and on the journey they read The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul by Philip Doddridge, a leading early 18th-century English nonconformist.[41]


William Wilberforce by John Rising, 1790, pictured at the age of 29

After his earlier interest in evangelical religion when he was young, Wilberforce's journey to faith seems to have begun afresh at this time. He started to rise early to read the Bible and pray and kept a private journal.[42] He underwent an evangelical conversion, regretting his past life and resolving to commit his future life and work to the service of God.[1] His conversion changed some of his habits, but not his nature: he remained outwardly cheerful, interested and respectful, tactfully urging others towards his new faith.[43] Inwardly, he underwent an agonising struggle and became relentlessly self-critical, harshly judging his spirituality, use of time, vanity, self-control and relationships with others.[44]

At the time, religious enthusiasm was generally regarded as a social transgression and was stigmatised in polite society. Evangelicals in the upper classes, such as Sir Richard Hill, the Methodist MP for Shropshire, and Selina Hastings, Countess of Huntingdon, were exposed to contempt and ridicule,[45] and Wilberforce's conversion led him to question whether he should remain in public life. He sought guidance from John Newton, a leading evangelical Anglican clergyman of the day and Rector of St Mary Woolnoth in the City of London.[46][47] Both Newton and Pitt counselled him to remain in politics, and he resolved to do so "with increased diligence and conscientiousness".[1] Thereafter, his political views were informed by his faith and by his desire to promote Christianity and Christian ethics in private and public life.[48][49] His views were often deeply conservative, opposed to radical changes in a God-given political and social order, and focused on issues such as the observance of the Sabbath and the eradication of immorality through education and reform.[50] As a result, he was often distrusted by progressive voices because of his conservatism, and regarded with suspicion by many Tories who saw evangelicals as radicals, bent on the overthrow of church and state.[29]

In 1786, Wilberforce leased a house in Old Palace Yard, Westminster, in order to be near Parliament. He began using his parliamentary position to advocate reform by introducing a Registration Bill, proposing limited changes to parliamentary election procedures.[1][51] He brought forward a bill to extend the measure permitting the dissection after execution of criminals such as rapists, arsonists and thieves. The bill also advocated the reduction of sentences for women convicted of treason, a crime that at the time included a husband's murder. The House of Commons passed both bills, but they were defeated in the House of Lords.[52][53]

Abolition of the slave trade

Initial decision

The British initially became involved in the slave trade during the 16th century. By 1783, the triangular route that took British-made goods to Africa to buy slaves, transported the enslaved to the West Indies, and then brought slave-grown products such as sugar, tobacco, and cotton to Britain, represented about 80 percent of Great Britain's foreign income.[54][55] British ships dominated the slave trade, supplying French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese and British colonies, and in peak years carried forty thousand enslaved men, women and children across the Atlantic in the horrific conditions of the middle passage.[56] Of the estimated 11 million Africans transported into slavery, about 1.4 million died during the voyage.[57]

The British campaign to abolish the slave trade is generally considered to have begun in the 1780s with the establishment of the Quakers' anti-slavery committees, and their presentation to Parliament of the first slave trade petition in 1783.[58][59] The same year, Wilberforce, while dining with his old Cambridge friend Gerard Edwards,[60] met Rev. James Ramsay, a ship's surgeon who had become a clergyman on the island of St Christopher (later St Kitts) in the Leeward Islands, and a medical supervisor of the plantations there. What Ramsay had witnessed of the conditions endured by the slaves, both at sea and on the plantations, horrified him. Returning to England after fifteen years, he accepted the living of Teston, Kent in 1781, and there met Sir Charles Middleton, Lady Middleton, Thomas Clarkson, Hannah More and others, a group that later became known as the Testonites.[61] Interested in promoting Christianity and moral improvement in Britain and overseas, they were appalled by Ramsay's reports of the depraved lifestyles of slave owners, the cruel treatment meted out to the enslaved, and the lack of Christian instruction provided to the slaves.[62] With their encouragement and help, Ramsay spent three years writing An essay on the treatment and conversion of African slaves in the British sugar colonies, which was highly critical of slavery in the West Indies. The book, published in 1784, was to have an important impact in raising public awareness and interest, and it excited the ire of West Indian planters who in the coming years attacked both Ramsay and his ideas in a series of pro-slavery tracts.[63]


Diagram of a slave ship, the Brookes, illustrating the inhumane conditions aboard such vessels

Wilberforce apparently did not follow up on his meeting with Ramsay.[60] However, three years later, and inspired by his new faith, Wilberforce was growing interested in humanitarian reform. In November 1786, he received a letter from Sir Charles Middleton that re-opened his interest in the slave trade.[64][65] At the urging of Lady Middleton, Sir Charles suggested that Wilberforce bring forward the abolition of the slave trade in Parliament. Wilberforce responded that he "felt the great importance of the subject, and thought himself unequal to the task allotted to him, but yet would not positively decline it".[66] He began to read widely on the subject, and met with the Testonites at Middleton's home at Barham Court in Teston in the early winter of 1786–1787.[67]

In early 1787, Thomas Clarkson, a fellow graduate of St John's, Cambridge, who had become convinced of the need to end the slave trade after writing a prize-winning essay on the subject while at Cambridge,[61] called upon Wilberforce at Old Palace Yard with a published copy of the work.[68][69] This was the first time the two men had met; their collaboration would last nearly fifty years.[70][71] Clarkson began to visit Wilberforce on a weekly basis, bringing first-hand evidence[72] he had obtained about the slave trade.[70] The Quakers, already working for abolition, also recognised the need for influence within Parliament, and urged Clarkson to secure a commitment from Wilberforce to bring forward the case for abolition in the House of Commons.[73][74]

It was arranged that Bennet Langton, a Lincolnshire landowner and mutual acquaintance of Wilberforce and Clarkson, would organize a dinner party in order to ask Wilberforce formally to lead the parliamentary campaign.[75] The dinner took place on 13 March 1787; other guests included Charles Middleton, Sir Joshua Reynolds, William Windham MP, James Boswell and Isaac Hawkins Browne MP. By the end of the evening, Wilberforce had agreed in general terms that he would bring forward the abolition of the slave trade in Parliament, "provided that no person more proper could be found".[76]

The same spring, on 12 May 1787, the still hesitant Wilberforce held a conversation with William Pitt and the future Prime Minister William Grenville as they sat under a large oak tree on Pitt's estate in Kent.[1] Under what came to be known as the "Wilberforce Oak" at Holwood House, Pitt challenged his friend: "Wilberforce, why don't you give notice of a motion on the subject of the Slave Trade? You have already taken great pains to collect evidence, and are therefore fully entitled to the credit which doing so will ensure you. Do not lose time, or the ground will be occupied by another."[77] Wilberforce's response is not recorded, but he later declared in old age that he could "distinctly remember the very knoll on which I was sitting near Pitt and Grenville" where he made his decision.[78]

Wilberforce's involvement in the abolition movement was motivated by a desire to put his Christian principles into action and to serve God in public life.[79][80] He and other evangelicals were horrified by what they perceived was a depraved and un-Christian trade, and the greed and avarice of the owners and traders.[80][81] Wilberforce sensed a call from God, writing in a journal entry in 1787 that "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners [moral values]".[82][83] The conspicuous involvement of evangelicals in the highly popular anti-slavery movement served to improve the status of a group otherwise associated with the less popular campaigns against vice and immorality.[84]

Early parliamentary action

On 22 May 1787, the first meeting of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade took place, bringing like-minded British Quakers and Anglicans together in the same organisation for the first time.[85] The committee chose to campaign against the slave trade rather than slavery itself, with many members believing that slavery would eventually disappear as a natural consequence of the abolition of the trade.[86] Wilberforce, though involved informally, did not join the committee officially until 1791.[87][88]


"Am I Not A Man And A Brother?" Medallion created as part of anti-slavery campaign by Josiah Wedgwood, 1787

The society was highly successful in raising public awareness and support, and local chapters sprang up throughout Great Britain.[58][89] Clarkson travelled the country researching and collecting first-hand testimony and statistics, while the committee promoted the campaign, pioneering techniques such as lobbying, writing pamphlets, holding public meetings, gaining press attention, organising boycotts and even using a campaign logo: an image of a kneeling slave above the motto "Am I not a Man and a Brother?", designed by the renowned pottery-maker Josiah Wedgwood.[58][90][91] The committee also sought to influence slave-trading nations such as France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Holland and the United States, corresponding with anti-slavery activists in other countries and organising the translation of English-language books and pamphlets.[92] These included books by former slaves Ottobah Cugoano and Olaudah Equiano, who had published influential works on slavery and the slave trade in 1787 and 1789 respectively. They and other free blacks, collectively known as "Sons of Africa", spoke at debating societies and wrote spirited letters to newspapers, periodicals and prominent figures, as well as public letters of support to campaign allies.[93][94][95] Hundreds of parliamentary petitions opposing the slave trade were received in 1788 and following years, with hundreds of thousands of signatories in total.[58][91] The campaign proved to be the world's first grassroots human rights campaign, in which men and women from different social classes and backgrounds volunteered to try to end the injustices suffered by others.[96]

Wilberforce had planned to introduce a motion giving notice that he would bring forward a bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade during the 1789 parliamentary session. However, in January 1788, he was taken ill with a probable stress-related condition, now thought to be ulcerative colitis.[97][98] It was several months before he was able to resume work, and he spent time convalescing at Bath and Cambridge. His regular bouts of gastrointestinal illnesses precipitated the use of moderate quantities of opium, which proved effective in alleviating his condition,[99] and which he continued to use for the rest of his life.[100]

In Wilberforce's absence, Pitt, who had long been supportive of abolition, introduced the preparatory motion himself, and ordered a Privy Council investigation into the slave trade, followed by a House of Commons review.[101][102]

With the publication of the Privy Council report in April 1789 and following months of planning, Wilberforce commenced his parliamentary campaign.[99][103] On 12 May 1789, he made his first major speech on the subject of abolition in the House of Commons, in which he reasoned that the trade was morally reprehensible and an issue of natural justice. Drawing on Thomas Clarkson's mass of evidence, he described in detail the appalling conditions in which slaves travelled from Africa in the middle passage, and argued that abolishing the trade would also bring an improvement to the conditions of existing slaves in the West Indies. He moved 12 resolutions condemning the slave trade, but made no reference to the abolition of slavery itself, instead dwelling on the potential for reproduction in the existing slave population should the trade be abolished.[104][105] With the tide running against them, the opponents of abolition delayed the vote by proposing that the House of Commons hear its own evidence, and Wilberforce, in a move that has subsequently been criticised for prolonging the slave trade, reluctantly agreed.[106][107] The hearings were not completed by the end of the parliamentary session, and were deferred until the following year. In the meantime, Wilberforce and Clarkson tried unsuccessfully to take advantage of the egalitarian atmosphere of the French Revolution to press for France's abolition of the trade,[108] which was, in any event, to be abolished in 1794 as a result of the bloody slave revolt in St. Domingue (later to be known as Haiti), although later briefly restored by Napoleon in 1802.[109] In January 1790, Wilberforce succeeded in speeding up the hearings by gaining approval for a smaller parliamentary select committee to consider the vast quantity of evidence which had been accumulated.[110] Wilberforce's house in Old Palace Yard became a centre for the abolitionists' campaign and a focus for many strategy meetings.[1] Petitioners for other causes also besieged him there, and his ante-room was thronged from an early hour, like "Noah's Ark, full of beasts clean and unclean", according to Hannah More.[32][111][112]

Let us not despair; it is a blessed cause, and success, ere long, will crown our exertions. Already we have gained one victory; we have obtained, for these poor creatures, the recognition of their human nature, which, for a while was most shamefully denied. This is the first fruits of our efforts; let us persevere and our triumph will be complete. Never, never will we desist till we have wiped away this scandal from the Christian name, released ourselves from the load of guilt, under which we at present labour, and extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonour to this country.

William Wilberforce — speech before the House of Commons, 18 April 1791[113]

Interrupted by a general election in June 1790, the committee finally finished hearing witnesses, and in April 1791 with a closely reasoned four-hour speech, Wilberforce introduced the first parliamentary bill to abolish the slave trade.[114][115] However, after two evenings of debate, the bill was easily defeated by 163 votes to 88, the political climate having swung in a conservative direction in the wake of the French Revolution and in reaction to an increase in radicalism and to slave revolts in the French West Indies.[116][117] Such was the public hysteria of the time that even Wilberforce himself was suspected by some of being a Jacobin agitator.[118]

This was the beginning of a protracted parliamentary campaign, during which Wilberforce's commitment never wavered, despite frustration and hostility. He was supported in his work by fellow members of the so-called Clapham Sect, among whom was his best friend and cousin Henry Thornton.[119][120] Holding evangelical Christian convictions, and consequently dubbed "the Saints", the group mainly lived in large houses surrounding the common in Clapham, then a village to the south-west of London. Wilberforce accepted an invitation to share a house with Henry Thornton in 1792, moving into his own home after Thornton's marriage in 1796.[121] The "Saints" were an informal community, characterised by considerable intimacy as well as a commitment to practical Christianity and an opposition to slavery. They developed a relaxed family atmosphere, wandering freely in and out of each other's homes and gardens, and discussing the many religious, social and political topics that engaged them.[122]

Pro-slavery advocates claimed that enslaved Africans were lesser human beings who benefited from their bondage.[123] Wilberforce, the Clapham Sect and others were anxious to demonstrate that Africans, and particularly freed slaves, had human and economic abilities beyond the slave trade, and that they were capable of sustaining a well-ordered society, trade and cultivation. Inspired in part by the utopian vision of Granville Sharp, they became involved in the establishment in 1792 of a free colony in Sierra Leone with black settlers from Britain, Nova Scotia and Jamaica, as well as native Africans and some whites.[123][124] They formed the Sierra Leone Company, with Wilberforce subscribing liberally to the project in money and time.[125] The dream was of an ideal society in which races would mix on equal terms; the reality was fraught with tension, crop failures, disease, death, war and defections to the slave trade. Initially a commercial venture, the British government assumed responsibility for the colony in 1808.[123] The colony, although troubled at times, was to become a symbol of anti-slavery in which residents, communities and African tribal chiefs, worked together to prevent enslavement at the source, supported by a British naval blockade to stem the region's slave trade.[126][127]

On 2 April 1792, Wilberforce again brought a bill calling for abolition. The memorable debate that followed drew contributions from the greatest orators in the house, William Pitt the Younger and Charles James Fox, as well as from Wilberforce himself.[128] Henry Dundas, as Home Secretary, proposed a compromise solution of so-called "gradual abolition" over a number of years. This was passed by 230 to 85 votes in the Commons but was rejected by the Lords. Some argue the compromise was little more than a clever ploy, with the intention of ensuring that total abolition would be delayed indefinitely.[129]

War with France

On 26 February 1793, another vote to abolish the slave trade was narrowly defeated by eight votes. The outbreak of war with France the same month effectively prevented any further serious consideration of the issue, as politicians concentrated on the national crisis and the threat of invasion.[130] The same year, and again in 1794, Wilberforce unsuccessfully brought before Parliament a bill to outlaw British ships from supplying slaves to foreign colonies.[123][131] He voiced his concern about the war and urged Pitt and his government to make greater efforts to end hostilities.[132] Growing more alarmed, on 31 December 1794, Wilberforce moved that the government seek a peaceful resolution with France, a stance that created a temporary breach in his long friendship with Pitt.[133]

Abolition continued to be associated in the public consciousness with the French Revolution and with British radical groups, resulting in a decline in public support.[134] In 1795, the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade ceased to meet, and Clarkson retired in ill-health to the Lake District.[135][136] In 1795 leave to bring in a bill for abolition of the slave trade was refused in the commons by 78 to 61; and in 1796, though he succeeded in carrying the same measure to a third reading, it was then rejected on 15 March 1796 by 74 to 70. Henry Dundas, who secured the 1792 commons "gradual" abolition of slave trade bill; to end on 1 January 1796, voted AYE, in support. Enough of his supporters, to have carried it were, as Wilberforce complains, attending a new comic opera. However, despite the decreased interest in abolition, Wilberforce continued to introduce abolition bills throughout the 1790s.[137][138]

The early years of the 19th century once again saw an increased public interest in abolition. In 1804, Clarkson resumed his work and the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade began meeting again, strengthened with prominent new members such as Zachary Macaulay, Henry Brougham and James Stephen.[135][139] In June 1804, Wilberforce's bill to abolish the slave trade successfully passed all its stages through the House of Commons. However, it was too late in the parliamentary session for it to complete its passage through the House of Lords. On its reintroduction during the 1805 session, it was defeated, with even the usually sympathetic Pitt failing to support it.[140] On this occasion and throughout the campaign, abolition was held back by Wilberforce's trusting, even credulous nature, and his deferential attitude towards those in power. He found it difficult to believe that men of rank would not do what he perceived to be the right thing, and was reluctant to confront them when they did not.[138]

Final phase of the campaign

Following Pitt's death in January 1806, Wilberforce began to collaborate more with the Whigs, especially the abolitionists. He gave general support to the Grenville–Fox administration, which brought more abolitionists into the cabinet; Wilberforce and Charles Fox led the campaign in the House of Commons, while Lord Grenville advocated the cause in the House of Lords.[123][141]


The House of Commons in Wilberforce's day by Augustus Pugin and Thomas Rowlandson (1808–1811)

A radical change of tactics, which involved the introduction of a bill to ban British subjects from aiding or participating in the slave trade to the French colonies, was suggested by maritime lawyer James Stephen.[142] It was a shrewd move, since the majority of British ships were now flying American flags and supplying slaves to foreign colonies with whom Britain was at war.[143] A bill was introduced and approved by the cabinet, and Wilberforce and other abolitionists maintained a self-imposed silence, so as not to draw any attention to the effect of the bill.[144][145] The approach proved successful, and the new Foreign Slave Trade Bill was quickly passed, and received royal assent on 23 May 1806.[146] Wilberforce and Clarkson had collected a large volume of evidence against the slave trade over the previous two decades, and Wilberforce spent the latter part of 1806 writing A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, which was a comprehensive restatement of the abolitionists' case. The death of Fox in September 1806 was a blow, but was followed quickly by a general election in the autumn of 1806.[147] Slavery became an election issue, bringing more abolitionist MPs into the House of Commons, including former military men who had personally experienced the horrors of slavery and slave revolts.[148] Wilberforce was re-elected as an MP for Yorkshire,[149] after which he returned to finishing and publishing his Letter, in reality a 400-page book which formed the basis for the final phase of the campaign.[150]

Lord Grenville, the Prime Minister, was determined to introduce an Abolition Bill in the House of Lords, rather than in the House of Commons, taking it through its greatest challenge first.[149] When a final vote was taken, the bill was passed in the House of Lords by a large margin.[151] Sensing a breakthrough that had been long anticipated, Charles Grey moved for a second reading in the Commons on 23 February 1807. As tributes were made to Wilberforce, whose face streamed with tears, the bill was carried by 283 votes to 16.[146][152] Excited supporters suggested taking advantage of the large majority to seek the abolition of slavery itself, but Wilberforce made it clear that total emancipation was not the immediate goal: "They had for the present no object immediately before them, but that of putting stop directly to the carrying of men in British ships to be sold as slaves."[153] The Slave Trade Act received royal assent on 25 March 1807.[154]

Personal life

In his youth, William Wilberforce showed little interest in women, but when he was in his late thirties his friend Thomas Babington recommended twenty-year-old Barbara Ann Spooner (1777–1847) as a potential bride.[155] Wilberforce met her two days later on 15 April 1797, and was immediately smitten;[1] following an eight-day whirlwind romance, he proposed.[156] Despite the urgings of friends to slow down, the couple married at the Church of St Swithin in Bath, Somerset, on 30 May 1797.[1] They were devoted to each other, and Barbara was very attentive and supportive to Wilberforce in his increasing ill health, though she showed little interest in his political activities.[1] They had six children in fewer than ten years: William (born 1798), Barbara (born 1799), Elizabeth (born 1801), Robert (born 1802), Samuel (born 1805) and Henry (born 1807).[1] Wilberforce was an indulgent and adoring father who revelled in his time at home and at play with his children.[157]

Other concerns

Political and social reform

Wilberforce was highly conservative on many political and social issues. He advocated change in society through Christianity and improvement in morals, education and religion, fearing and opposing radical causes and revolution.[50] The radical writer William Cobbett was among those who attacked what they saw as Wilberforce's hypocrisy in campaigning for better working conditions for slaves while British workers lived in terrible conditions at home.[158] "Never have you done one single act, in favour of the labourers of this country", he wrote.[159] Critics noted Wilberforce's support of the suspension of habeas corpus in 1795 and his votes for Pitt's "Gagging Bills", which banned meetings of more than 50 people, allowing speakers to be arrested and imposing harsh penalties on those who attacked the constitution.[160][161] Wilberforce was opposed to giving workers' rights to organise into unions, in 1799 speaking in favour of the Combination Act, which suppressed trade union activity throughout Britain, and calling unions "a general disease in our society".[160][162] He also opposed an enquiry into the 1819 Peterloo Massacre in which eleven protesters were killed at a political rally demanding reform.[163] Concerned about "bad men who wished to produce anarchy and confusion", he approved of the government's Six Acts, which further limited public meetings and seditious writings.[164][165] Wilberforce's actions led the essayist William Hazlitt to condemn him as one "who preaches vital Christianity to untutored savages, and tolerates its worst abuses in civilised states."[166]


Unfinished portrait by Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1828

Wilberforce's views of women and religion were also conservative. He disapproved of women anti-slavery activists such as Elizabeth Heyrick, who organised women's abolitionist groups in the 1820s, protesting: "[F]or ladies to meet, to publish, to go from house to house stirring up petitions—these appear to me proceedings unsuited to the female character as delineated in Scripture."[167][168] Wilberforce initially strongly opposed bills for Catholic emancipation, which would have allowed Catholics to become MPs, hold public office and serve in the army,[169] although by 1813, he had changed his views and spoke in favour of a similar bill.[170]

More progressively, Wilberforce advocated legislation to improve the working conditions for chimney-sweeps and textile workers, engaged in prison reform, and supported campaigns to restrict capital punishment and the severe punishments meted out under the Game laws.[171] He recognised the importance of education in alleviating poverty, and when Hannah More and her sister established Sunday schools for the poor in Somerset and the Mendips, he provided financial and moral support as they faced opposition from landowners and Anglican clergy.[172][173] From the late 1780s onward, Wilberforce campaigned for limited parliamentary reform, such as the abolition of rotten boroughs and the redistribution of Commons seats to growing towns and cities, though by 1832, he feared that such measures went too far.[160][174] With others, Wilberforce founded the world's first animal welfare organisation, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (later the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).[175] In 1824, Wilberforce was one of over 30 eminent gentlemen who put their names at the inaugural public meeting to the fledgling National Institution for the Preservation of Life from Shipwreck,[176] later named the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. He was also opposed to duelling, which he described as the "disgrace of a Christian society" and was appalled when his friend Pitt engaged in a duel with George Tierney in 1798, particularly as it occurred on a Sunday, the Christian day of rest.[177][178]

Wilberforce was generous with his time and money, believing that those with wealth had a duty to give a significant portion of their income to the needy. Yearly, he gave away thousands of pounds, much of it to clergymen to distribute in their parishes. He paid off the debts of others, supported education and missions, and in a year of food shortages, gave to charity more than his own yearly income. He was exceptionally hospitable, and could not bear to sack any of his servants. As a result, his home was full of old and incompetent servants kept on in charity. Although he was often months behind in his correspondence, Wilberforce responded to numerous requests for advice or for help in obtaining professorships, military promotions and livings for clergymen, or for the reprieve of death sentences.[179][180]

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Evangelical Christianity

A supporter of the evangelical wing of the Church of England, Wilberforce believed that the revitalisation of the church and individual Christian observance would lead to a harmonious, moral society.[160] He sought to elevate the status of religion in public and private life, making piety fashionable in both the upper- and middle-classes of society.[181] To this end, in April 1797, Wilberforce published A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity, on which he had been working since 1793. This was an exposition of New Testament doctrine and teachings and a call for a revival of Christianity, as a response to the moral decline of the nation, illustrating his own personal testimony and the views which inspired him. The book proved to be influential and a best-seller by the standards of the day; 7,500 copies were sold within six months, and it was translated into several languages.[182][183]

Wilberforce fostered and supported missionary activity in Britain and abroad. He was a founding member of the Church Missionary Society (since renamed the Church Mission Society) and was involved, with other members of the Clapham Sect, in numerous other evangelical and charitable organisations.[184][185] Horrified by the lack of Christian evangelism in India, Wilberforce used the 1793 renewal of the British East India Company's charter to propose the addition of clauses requiring the company to provide teachers and chaplains and to commit to the "religious improvement" of Indians. The plan was unsuccessful due to lobbying by the directors of the company, who feared that their commercial interests would be damaged.[186][187] Wilberforce tried again in 1813, when the charter next came up for renewal. Using petitions, meetings, lobbying and letter writing, he successfully campaigned for changes to the charter.[160][188] Speaking in favour of the Charter Act 1813, he criticised the East India Company and their rule in India for its hypocrisy and racial prejudice, while also condemning aspects of Hinduism including the caste system, infanticide, polygamy and suttee. "Our religion is sublime, pure beneficent", he said, "theirs is mean, licentious and cruel".[188][189]

Moral reform

Greatly concerned by what he perceived to be the degeneracy of British society, Wilberforce was also active in matters of moral reform, lobbying against "the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances", and considered this issue and the abolition of the slave trade as equally important goals.[190] At the suggestion of Wilberforce and Bishop Porteus, King George III was requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury to issue in 1787 the Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice, as a remedy for the rising tide of immorality.[191][192] The proclamation commanded the prosecution of those guilty of "excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord's Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices".[193] Greeted largely with public indifference, Wilberforce sought to increase its impact by mobilising public figures to the cause,[194] and by founding the Society for the Suppression of Vice.[194][195] This and other societies in which Wilberforce was a prime mover, such as the Proclamation Society, mustered support for the prosecution of those who had been charged with violating relevant laws, including brothel keepers, distributors of pornographic material, and those who did not respect the Sabbath.[160] Years later, the writer and clergyman Sydney Smith criticised Wilberforce for being more interested in the sins of the poor than those of the rich, and suggested that a better name would have been the Society for "suppressing the vices of persons whose income does not exceed £500 per annum".[65][196] The societies were not highly successful in terms of membership and support, although their activities did lead to the imprisonment of Thomas Williams, the London printer of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason.[84][137] Wilberforce's attempts to legislate against adultery and Sunday newspapers were also in vain; his involvement and leadership in other, less punitive, approaches were more successful in the long-term, however. By the end of his life, British morals, manners, and sense of social responsibility had increased, paving the way for future changes in societal conventions and attitudes during the Victorian era.[1][160][197]

Emancipation of enslaved Africans

The hopes of the abolitionists notwithstanding, slavery did not wither with the end of the slave trade in the British Empire, nor did the living conditions of the enslaved improve. The trade continued, with few countries following suit by abolishing the trade, and with some British ships disregarding the legislation. Wilberforce worked with the members of the African Institution to ensure the enforcement of abolition and to promote abolitionist negotiations with other countries.[160][198][199] In particular, the US had abolished the slave trade in 1808, and Wilberforce lobbied the American government to enforce its own prohibition more strongly.[200]

The same year, Wilberforce moved his family from Clapham to a sizable mansion with a large garden in Kensington Gore, closer to the Houses of Parliament. Never strong, and by 1812 in worsening health, Wilberforce resigned his Yorkshire seat, and became MP for the rotten borough of Bramber in Sussex, a seat with little or no constituency obligations, thus allowing him more time for his family and the causes that interested him.[201] From 1816 Wilberforce introduced a series of bills which would require the compulsory registration of slaves, together with details of their country of origin, permitting the illegal importation of foreign slaves to be detected. Later in the same year he began publicly to denounce slavery itself, though he did not demand immediate emancipation, as "They had always thought the slaves incapable of liberty at present, but hoped that by degrees a change might take place as the natural result of the abolition."[202]

In 1820, after a period of poor health, and with his eyesight failing, Wilberforce took the decision to further limit his public activities,[203] although he became embroiled in unsuccessful mediation attempts between King George IV, and his estranged wife Caroline of Brunswick, who had sought her rights as queen.[1] Nevertheless, Wilberforce still hoped "to lay a foundation for some future measures for the emancipation of the poor slaves", which he believed should come about gradually in stages.[204] Aware that the cause would need younger men to continue the work, in 1821 he asked fellow MP Thomas Fowell Buxton to take over leadership of the campaign in the Commons.[203] As the 1820s wore on, Wilberforce increasingly became a figurehead for the abolitionist movement, although he continued to appear at anti-slavery meetings, welcoming visitors, and maintaining a busy correspondence on the subject.[205][206][207]

The year 1823 saw the founding of the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery (later the Anti-Slavery Society),[208] and the publication of Wilberforce's 56-page Appeal to the Religion, Justice and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire in Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies.[209] In his treatise, Wilberforce urged that total emancipation was morally and ethically required, and that slavery was a national crime that must be ended by parliamentary legislation to gradually abolish slavery.[210] Members of Parliament did not quickly agree, and government opposition in March 1823 stymied Wilberforce's call for abolition.[211] On 15 May 1823, Buxton moved another resolution in Parliament for gradual emancipation.[212] Subsequent debates followed on 16 March and 11 June 1824 in which Wilberforce made his last speeches in the Commons, and which again saw the emancipationists outmanoeuvred by the government.[213][214]

Last years

Wilberforce's health was continuing to fail, and he suffered further illnesses in 1824 and 1825. With his family concerned that his life was endangered, he declined a peerage[215] and resigned his seat in Parliament, leaving the campaign in the hands of others.[175][216] Thomas Clarkson continued to travel, visiting anti-slavery groups throughout Britain, motivating activists and acting as an ambassador for the anti-slavery cause to other countries,[68] while Buxton pursued the cause of reform in Parliament.[217] Public meetings and petitions demanding emancipation continued, with an increasing number supporting immediate abolition rather than the gradual approach favoured by Wilberforce, Clarkson and their colleagues.[218][219]


Wilberforce was buried in Westminster Abbey next to Pitt. This memorial statue, by Samuel Joseph (1791–1850), was erected in 1840 in the north choir aisle.

In 1826, Wilberforce moved from his large house in Kensington Gore to Highwood Hill, a more modest property in the countryside of Mill Hill, north of London,[175] where he was soon joined by his son William and family. William had attempted a series of educational and career paths, and a venture into farming in 1830 led to huge losses, which his father repaid in full, despite offers from others to assist. This left Wilberforce with little income, and he was obliged to let his home and spend the rest of his life visiting family members and friends.[220] He continued his support for the anti-slavery cause, including attending and chairing meetings of the Anti-Slavery Society.[221]

Wilberforce approved of the 1830 election victory of the more progressive Whigs, though he was concerned about the implications of their Reform Bill which proposed the redistribution of parliamentary seats towards newer towns and cities and an extension of the franchise. In the event, the Reform Act 1832 was to bring more abolitionist MPs into Parliament as a result of intense and increasing public agitation against slavery. In addition, the 1832 slave revolt in Jamaica convinced government ministers that abolition was essential to avoid further rebellion.[222] In 1833, Wilberforce's health declined further and he suffered a severe attack of influenza from which he never fully recovered.[1] He made a final anti-slavery speech in April 1833 at a public meeting in Maidstone, Kent.[223] The following month, the Whig government introduced the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery, formally saluting Wilberforce in the process.[224] On 26 July 1833, Wilberforce heard of government concessions that guaranteed the passing of the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery.[225] The following day he grew much weaker, and he died early on the morning of 29 July at his cousin's house in Cadogan Place, London.[226][227]

One month later, the House of Lords passed the Slavery Abolition Act, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire from August 1834.[228] They voted plantation owners £20 million in compensation, giving full emancipation to children younger than six, and instituting a system of apprenticeship requiring other enslaved peoples to work for their former masters for four to six years in the British West Indies, South Africa, Mauritius, British Honduras and Canada. Nearly 800,000 African slaves were freed, the vast majority in the Caribbean.[229][230]

Funeral

Wilberforce had requested that he was to be buried with his sister and daughter at Stoke Newington, just north of London. However, the leading members of both Houses of Parliament urged that he be honoured with a burial in Westminster Abbey. The family agreed and, on 3 August 1833, Wilberforce was buried in the north transept, close to his friend William Pitt the Younger.[231] The funeral was attended by many Members of Parliament, as well as by members of the public. The pallbearers included the Duke of Gloucester, the Lord Chancellor Henry Brougham and the Speaker of the House of Commons Charles Manners-Sutton.[232][233][234]

While tributes were paid and Wilberforce was laid to rest, both Houses of Parliament suspended their business as a mark of respect.[235]

Legacy


The Wilberforce Monument in the grounds of Hull College, Hull, erected in 1834.

Five years after his death, sons Robert and Samuel Wilberforce published a five-volume biography about their father, and subsequently a collection of his letters in 1840. The biography was controversial in that the authors emphasised Wilberforce's role in the abolition movement and played down the important work of Thomas Clarkson. Incensed, Clarkson came out of retirement to write a book refuting their version of events, and the sons eventually made a half-hearted private apology to him and removed the offending passages in a revision of their biography.[236][237][238] However, for more than a century, Wilberforce's role in the campaign dominated the history books. Later historians have noted the warm and highly productive relationship between Clarkson and Wilberforce, and have termed it one of history's great partnerships: without both the parliamentary leadership supplied by Wilberforce and the research and public mobilisation organised by Clarkson, abolition could not have been achieved.[68][239][240]

As his sons had desired and planned, Wilberforce has long been viewed as a Christian hero, a statesman-saint held up as a role model for putting his faith into action.[1][241][242] More broadly, he has also been described as a humanitarian reformer who contributed significantly to reshaping the political and social attitudes of the time by promoting concepts of social responsibility and action.[160] In the 1940s, the role of Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect in abolition was downplayed by historian Eric Williams, who argued that abolition was motivated not by humanitarianism but by economics, as the West Indian sugar industry was in decline.[58][243] Williams' approach strongly influenced historians for much of the latter part of the 20th century. However, more recent historians have noted that the sugar industry was still making large profits at the time of the abolition of the slave trade, and this has led to a renewed interest in Wilberforce and the Evangelicals, as well as a recognition of the anti-slavery movement as a prototype for subsequent humanitarian campaigns.[58][244]

In 1942, Wilberforce was portrayed by John Mills in the biographical film about the life of William Pitt the Younger, The Young Mr. Pitt.

Memorials

Wilberforce's life and work have been widely commemorated. In Westminster Abbey, a seated statue of Wilberforce by Samuel Joseph was erected in 1840, bearing an epitaph praising his Christian character and his long labour to abolish the slave trade and slavery itself.[245]

In Wilberforce's home town of Hull, a public subscription in 1834 funded the Wilberforce Monument, a 31-metre (102 ft) Greek Doric column topped by a statue of Wilberforce, which now stands in the grounds of Hull College near Queen's Gardens.[246] Wilberforce's birthplace was acquired by the city corporation in 1903 and, following renovation, Wilberforce House in Hull was opened as Britain's first slavery museum.[247] Wilberforce Memorial School for the Blind in York was established in 1833 in his honour,[248] and in 2006 the University of Hull established the Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation in Oriel Chambers, a building adjoining Wilberforce's birthplace.[249] Various churches within the Anglican Communion commemorate Wilberforce in their liturgical calendars,[250] and Wilberforce University in Ohio, United States, founded in 1856, is named after him. The university was the first owned by African-American people, and is a historically black college.[251][252] In Ontario, Canada, Wilberforce Colony was founded by black reformers, and inhabited by free slaves from the United States.[253] In 2019, St. Clements University, which is registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands (British West Indies), founded the William Wilberforce International Human Rights Law Centre.[254]

Amazing Grace, a film about Wilberforce and the struggle against the slave trade, directed by Michael Apted and starring Ioan Gruffudd and Benedict Cumberbatch was released in 2007 to coincide with the 200th anniversary of Parliament's anti-slave trade legislation.[255][256]

Bibliography

• Wilberforce, William (1797), A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians, in the Middle and Higher Classes in this Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity, London: T. Caddell
• Wilberforce, William (1807), A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, Addressed to the Freeholders of Yorkshire, London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, J. Hatchard
• Wilberforce, William (1823), An Appeal to the Religion, Justice, and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire in behalf of the Negro slaves in the West Indies, London: J. Hatchard and Son

See also

• List of abolitionist forerunners
• List of civil rights leaders
• The Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation
• The Wilberforce Society

Notes

1. Wolffe, John; Harrison, B. (May 2006) [online edition; first published September 2004]. "Wilberforce, William (1759–1833)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography(online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/29386. ISBN 978-0-19-861411-1. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
2. Pollock 1977, p. 6
3. Stott 2012, p. 16
4. Lead, cotton, tools and cutlery were among the more frequent exports from Hull to the Baltic countries, with timber, iron ore, yarns, hemp, wine and manufactured goods being imported to Britain on the return journey.Hague 2007, p. 3
5. Jackson 1972, p. 196
6. Young, Angus (12 January 2020). "The forgotten tragedy now hidden by a car park in Hull city centre". Hull Daily Mail / Hull Live.
7. Mawer, Bryan (2011). From Sweat to Sweetness. London: AGFHS Publications. ISBN 978-09547632-7-5.
8. Pollock 1977, p. 3
9. Tomkins 2007, p. 9
10. Pollock 1977, p. 4
11. Hague 2007, p. 5
12. Hague 2007, pp. 6–8
13. Hague 2007, pp. 14–15
14. Pollock 1977, pp. 5–6
15. Hague 2007, p. 15
16. Hague 2007, pp. 18–19
17. Pollock 1977, p. 7
18. Hague 2007, p. 20
19. Pollock 1977, pp. 8–9
20. Hague 2007, p. 23
21. Hague, William (2004), William Pitt the Younger, London: HarperPerennial, p. 29, ISBN 978-1-58134-875-0
22. Pollock 1977, p. 9
23. "Wilberforce, William (WLBR776W)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
24. Hague 2007, pp. 24–25
25. Pollock 1977, p. 11
26. Hochschild 2005, p. 125
27. Hague 2007, p. 36
28. Hague 2007, p. 359
29. Oldfield 2007, p. 44
30. Hochschild 2005, pp. 125–26
31. Pollock 1977, p. 15
32. Wilberforce, Robert Isaac; Wilberforce, Samuel (1838), The Life of William Wilberforce, John Murray
33. "Sickly shrimp of a man who sank the slave ships", The Sunday Times, London: The Times, 25 March 2005, retrieved 27 November 2007
34. Hague 2007, pp. 44–52
35. Hague 2007, pp. 53–55
36. Pollock 1977, p. 23
37. Pollock 1977, pp. 23–24
38. Hague 2007, pp. 52–53, 59
39. Pollock 1977, p. 31
40. Hague 2007, pp. 70–72
41. Hague 2007, pp. 72–74
42. Pollock 1977, p. 37
43. Hague 2007, pp. 99–102
44. Hague 2007, pp. 207–10
45. Brown 2006, pp. 380–82
46. Pollock 1977, p. 38
47. Brown 2006, p. 383
48. Brown 2006, p. 386
49. Bradley, Ian (1985), "Wilberforce the Saint", in Jack Hayward (ed.), Out of Slavery: Abolition and After, Frank Cass, pp. 79–81, ISBN 978-0-7146-3260-5
50. Hague 2007, p. 446
51. Hague 2007, p. 97
52. Hague 2007, pp. 97–99
53. Pollock 1977, pp. 40–42
54. Hague 2007, pp. 116, 119
55. D'Anjou 1996, p. 97
56. Hochschild 2005, pp. 14–15
57. Hochschild 2005, p. 32
58. Pinfold, John (2007), "Introduction", in Bodleian Library (ed.), The Slave Trade Debate: Contemporary Writings For and Against, Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, ISBN 978-1-85124-316-7
59. Ackerson 2005, p. 9
60. Pollock 1977, p. 17
61. Hague 2007, pp. 138–39
62. Brown 2006, pp. 351–52, 362–63
63. Brown 2006, pp. 364–66
64. Pollock 1977, p. 48
65. Tomkins 2007, p. 55
66. Hague 2007, p. 140
67. Pollock 1977, p. 53
68. Brogan, Hugh; Harrison, B. (October 2007) [online edition; first published September 2004]. "Clarkson, Thomas (1760–1846)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/5545. ISBN 978-0-19-861411-1. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
69. Metaxas, Eric (2007), Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, p. 111, ISBN 978-0-06-128787-9
70. Pollock 1977, p. 55
71. Hochschild 2005, pp. 123–24
72. Clarkson, Thomas (1836), The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade, Online – Project Gutenberg
73. Hochschild 2005, p. 122
74. D'Anjou 1996, pp. 157–158
75. Pollock 1977, p. 56
76. Hochschild 2005, pp. 122–124
77. Tomkins 2007, p. 57
78. Pollock 1977, p. 58 quoting Harford, p. 139
79. Brown 2006, pp. 26, 341, 458–459
80. Hague 2007, pp. 143, 119
81. Pinfold 2007, pp. 10, 13
82. Pollock 1977, p. 69
83. Piper, John (2006), Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce, Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, p. 35, ISBN 978-1-58134-875-0
84. Brown 2006, pp. 386–387
85. Ackerson 2005, pp. 10–11
86. Ackerson 2005, p. 15
87. Fogel, Robert William (1989), Without Consent Or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery, W. W. Norton & Company, p. 211, ISBN 978-0-393-31219-5
88. Oldfield 2007, pp. 40–41
89. Ackerson 2005, p. 11
90. Hague 2007, pp. 149–151
91. Crawford, Neta C. (2002), Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge University Press, p. 178, ISBN 0-521-00279-6
92. Hochschild 2005, p. 127
93. Hochschild 2005, pp. 136, 168
94. Brown 2006, p. 296
95. Fisch, Audrey A (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the African American Slave Narrative, Cambridge University Press, p. xv, ISBN 978-0-521-85019-3
96. Hochschild 2005, pp. 5–6
97. Pollock 1977, pp. 78–79
98. Hague 2007, pp. 149–157
99. Hochschild 2005, p. 139
100. Pollock 1977, pp. 79–81
101. Pollock 1977, p. 82
102. Hague 2007, p. 159
103. D'Anjou 1996, p. 166
104. Hague 2007, pp. 178–183
105. Hochschild 2005, p. 160
106. Hague 2007, pp. 185–186
107. Hochschild 2005, pp. 161–162
108. Hague 2007, pp. 187–189
109. Hochschild 2005, pp. 256–267, 292–293
110. Hague 2007, pp. 189–190
111. Hochschild 2005, p. 188
112. Hague 2007, pp. 201–202
113. Hansard, T.C. (printer) (1817), The Parliamentary history of England from the earliest period to the year 1803, XXIX, London: Printed by T.C. Hansard, p. 278
114. Hague 2007, p. 193
115. Pollock 1977, pp. 105–108
116. D'Anjou 1996, p. 167
117. Hague 2007, pp. 196–198
118. Walvin, James (2007), A Short History of Slavery, Penguin Books, p. 156, ISBN 978-0-14-102798-2
119. Pollock 1977, p. 218
120. D'Anjou 1996, p. 140
121. Wolffe, John; Harrison, B.; Goldman, L. (May 2007). "Clapham Sect (act. 1792–1815)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/42140. ISBN 978-0-19-861411-1. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
122. Hague 2007, pp. 218–219
123. Turner, Michael (April 1997), "The limits of abolition: Government, Saints and the 'African Question' c 1780–1820", The English Historical Review, Oxford University Press, 112 (446): 319–357, doi:10.1093/ehr/cxii.446.319, JSTOR 578180
124. Hochschild 2005, p. 150
125. Hague 2007, pp. 223–224
126. Rashid, Ismail (2003), "A Devotion to the idea of liberty at any price: Rebellion and Antislavery in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Upper Guinea Coast", in Sylviane Anna Diouf (ed.), Fighting the Slave Trade: West African Strategies, Ohio University Press, p. 135, ISBN 0-8214-1516-6
127. Ackerson 2005, p. 220
128. Pollock 1977, p. 114
129. Pollock 1977, p. 115
130. Pollock 1977, pp. 122–123
131. Hague 2007, p. 242
132. Pollock 1977, pp. 121–122
133. Hague 2007, pp. 247–249
134. Hague 2007, pp. 237–239
135. Ackerson 2005, p. 12
136. Hague 2007, p. 243
137. Hochschild 2005, p. 252
138. Hague 2007, p. 511
139. Hague 2007, p. 316
140. Hague 2007, pp. 313–320
141. Hague 2007, pp. 328–330
142. Pollock 1977, p. 201
143. Hague 2007, pp. 332–334
144. Hague 2007, pp. 335–336
145. Drescher, Seymour (Spring 1990), "People and Parliament: The Rhetoric of the British Slave Trade", Journal of Interdisciplinary History, MIT Press, 20 (4): 561–580, doi:10.2307/203999, JSTOR 203999
146. Pollock 1977, p. 211
147. Hague 2007, pp. 342–344
148. Hochschild 2005, pp. 304–306
149. Hague 2007, p. 348
150. Hague 2007, p. 351
151. Tomkins 2007, pp. 166–168
152. Hague 2007, p. 354
153. Hague 2007, p. 355
154. Pollock 1977, p. 214
155. Hochschild 2005, p. 251
156. Pollock 1977, p. 157
157. Hague 2007, pp. 294–295
158. Hague 2007, pp. 440–441
159. Cobbett, William (1823), Cobbett's Political Register, Cox and Baylis, p. 516
160. Hind, Robert J. (1987), "William Wilberforce and the Perceptions of the British People", Historical Research, 60 (143): 321–335, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2281.1987.tb00500.x
161. Hague 2007, pp. 250, 254–256
162. Hague 2007, p. 286
163. Hague 2007, pp. 441–442
164. Hague 2007, p. 442
165. Tomkins 2007, pp. 195–196
166. Hazlitt, William (1825), The spirit of the age, London: C. Templeton, p. 185
167. Hochschild 2005, pp. 324–327
168. Hague 2007, p. 487
169. Tomkins 2007, pp. 172–173
170. Hague 2007, pp. 406–407
171. Hague 2007, p. 447
172. Pollock 1977, pp. 92–93
173. Stott 2003, pp. 103–105, 246–447
174. Hague 2007, pp. 74, 498
175. Tomkins 2007, p. 207
176. "RNLI Our History". RNLI. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
177. Hague 2007, pp. 287–288
178. Hochschild 2005, p. 299
179. Hochschild 2005, p. 315
180. Hague 2007, pp. 211–212, 295, 300
181. Brown 2006, pp. 385–386
182. Hague 2007, pp. 271–272, 276
183. Pollock 1977, pp. 146–153
184. Pollock 1977, p. 176
185. Hague 2007, pp. 220–221
186. Tomkins 2007, pp. 115–116
187. Hague 2007, pp. 221, 408
188. Tomkins 2007, pp. 187–188
189. Keay, John (2000), India: A History, New York: Grove Press, p. 428, ISBN 0-8021-3797-0
190. Tomkins 2007, pp. 54–55
191. Pollock 1977, p. 61
192. Brown 2006, p. 346
193. Hochschild 2005, p. 126
194. Hague 2007, p. 108
195. Brown 2006, p. 385
196. Hague 2007, p. 109
197. Hague 2007, p. 514
198. Tomkins 2007, pp. 182–183
199. Ackerson 2005, pp. 142, 168, 209
200. Hague 2007, pp. 393–394, 343
201. Hague 2007, pp. 377–379, 401–406
202. Hague 2007, pp. 415, 343
203. Pollock 1977, p. 279
204. Hague 2007, p. 474
205. Ackerson 2005, p. 181
206. Oldfield 2007, p. 48
207. Hague 2007, pp. 492–493, 498
208. Pollock 1977, p. 286
209. Pollock 1977, p. 285
210. Hague 2007, pp. 477–479
211. Hague 2007, p. 481
212. Tomkins 2007, p. 203
213. Pollock 1977, p. 289
214. Hague 2007, p. 480
215. According to George W. E. Russell, on the grounds that it would exclude his sons from intimacy with private gentlemen, clergymen and mercantile families, (1899), Collections & Recollections, revised edition, Elder Smith & Co, London, p. 77.
216. Oldfield 2007, p. 45
217. Blouet, Olwyn Mary; Harrison, B. (October 2007) [online edition; first published September 2004]. "Buxton, Sir Thomas Fowell, first baronet (1786–1845)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography(online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/4247. ISBN 978-0-19-861411-1. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
218. Hague 2007, pp. 486–487
219. Tomkins 2007, pp. 206–207
220. Hague 2007, p. 494
221. Tomkins 2007, p. 213
222. Hague 2007, p. 498
223. Tomkins 2007, p. 217
224. Hague 2007, pp. 498–499
225. Hague 2007, p. 502
226. Pollock 1977, p. 308
227. Hague 2007, pp. 502–503
228. The legislation specifically excluded the territories of the Honourable East India Company which were not then under direct Crown control.
229. Kerr-Ritchie, Jeffrey R. (2007), Rites of August First: Emancipation Day in the Black Atlantic World, LSU Press, pp. 16–17, ISBN 978-0-8071-3232-6
230. Britain, Great; Evans, William David; Hammond, Anthony; Granger, Thomas Colpitts (1836), Slavery Abolition Act 1833, W. H. Bond
231. Hague 2007, p. 304
232. Hague 2007, p. 504
233. Pollock 1977, pp. 308–309
234. "Funeral of the Late Mr. Wilberforce", The Times (15235), pp. 3, col. C, 5 August 1833
235. Hague, William. Wilberforce Address, Conservative Christian Fellowship(November 1998)
236. Clarkson, Thomas (1838), Strictures on a Life of William Wilberforce, by the Rev. W. Wilberforce and the Rev. S. Wilberforce, London
237. Ackerson 2005, pp. 36–37, 41
238. Hochschild 2005, pp. 350–351
239. Hague 2007, pp. 154–155, 509
240. Hochschild 2005, pp. 351–352
241. "William Wilberforce", The New York Times, 13 December 1880, retrieved 24 March 2008
242. Oldfield 2007, pp. 48–49
243. Williams, Eric (1944), Capitalism and Slavery, University of North Carolina Press, p. 211, ISBN 978-0-8078-4488-5
244. D'Anjou 1996, p. 71
245. William Wilberforce, Westminster Abbey, retrieved 21 March 2008
246. The Wilberforce Monument, BBC, retrieved 21 March 2008
247. Oldfield 2007, pp. 70–71
248. Oldfield 2007, pp. 66–67
249. "Centre for slavery research opens". BBC News. London: BBC. 6 July 2006. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
250. Bradshaw, Paul (2002), The New SCM Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, SCM-Canterbury Press Ltd, p. 420, ISBN 0-334-02883-3
251. Ackerson 2005, p. 145
252. Beauregard, Erving E. (2003), Wilberforce University in "Cradles of Conscience: Ohio's Independent Colleges and Universities" Eds. John William. Oliver Jr., James A. Hodges, and James H. O'Donnell, Kent State University Press, pp. 489–490, ISBN 978-0-87338-763-7
253. Richard S. Newman (2008), Freedom's prophet: Bishop Richard Allen, the AME Church, and the Black founding fathers, NYU Press, p. 271, ISBN 978-0-8147-5826-7
254. http://www.stclementsinnofcourt.com
255. Langton, James; Hastings, Chris (25 February 2007), "Slave film turns Wilberforce into a US hero", Daily Telegraph, retrieved 16 April 2008
256. Riding, Alan (14 February 2007), "Abolition of slavery is still an unfinished story", International Herald Tribune, retrieved 16 April 2008

References

• Ackerson, Wayne (2005), The African Institution (1807–1827) and the Antislavery Movement in Great Britain, Lewiston, New York: E. Mellen Press, ISBN 978-0-7734-6129-1, OCLC 58546501
• Bayne, Peter (1890), Men Worthy to Lead; Being Lives of John Howard, William Wilberforce, Thomas Chalmers, Thomas Arnold, Samuel Budgett, John Foster, London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ltd, Reprinted by Bibliolife, ISBN 1-152-41551-4
• Belmonte, Kevin (2002), Hero for Humanity: A Biography of William Wilberforce, Colorado Springs, Colorado: Navpress Publishing Group, ISBN 978-1-57683-354-4, OCLC 49952624
• Brown, Christopher Leslie (2006), Moral Capital: Foundations of British Abolitionism, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 978-0-8078-5698-7, OCLC 62290468
• Carey, Brycchan (2005), British Abolitionism and the Rhetoric of Sensibility: Writing, Sentiment, and Slavery, 1760–1807, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-4039-4626-3, OCLC 58721077
• Coupland, Reginald. Wilberforce: A Narrative (1923) online
• D'Anjou, Leo (1996), Social Movements and Cultural Change: The First Abolition Campaign Revisited, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, ISBN 978-0-202-30522-6, OCLC 34151187
• Furneaux, Robin (2006) [1974], William Wilberforce, London: Hamish Hamilton, ISBN 978-1-57383-343-1, OCLC 1023912
• Hague, William (2007), William Wilberforce: The Life of the Great Anti-Slave Trade Campaigner, London: HarperPress, ISBN 978-0-00-722885-0, OCLC 80331607 online free to borrow
• Hennell, Michael (1950), William Wilberforce, 1759–1833: the Liberator of the Slave, London: Church Book Room, OCLC 8824569
• Hochschild, Adam (2005), Bury the Chains, The British Struggle to Abolish Slavery, London: Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-330-48581-4, OCLC 60458010
• Jackson, Gordon (1972), Hull in the Eighteenth Century: A Study in Economic and Social History, Oxford: University Press
• Metaxas, Eric (2007), Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, ISBN 978-0-06-117300-4, OCLC 81967213
• Oldfield, John (2007), Chords of Freedom: Commemoration, Ritual and British Transatlantic Slavery, Manchester: Manchester University Press, ISBN 978-0-7190-6664-1, OCLC 132318401
• Pollock, John (1977), Wilberforce, New York: St. Martin's Press, ISBN 978-0-09-460780-4, OCLC 3738175
• Pura, Murray Andrew (2002), Vital Christianity: The Life and Spirituality of William Wilberforce, Toronto: Clements, ISBN 1-894667-10-7, OCLC 48242442
• Reed, Lawrence W. (2008). "Wilberforce, William (1759–1833)". In Hamowy, Ronald(ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 544–545. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n330. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
• Rodriguez, Junius (2007), Encyclopedia of Emancipation and Abolition in the Transatlantic World, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, ISBN 978-0-7656-1257-1, OCLC 75389907
• Stott, Anne (2003), Hannah More: The First Victorian, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-924532-1, OCLC 186342431
• Stott, Anne (2012), Wilberforce: Family and Friends, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-969939-1
• Tomkins, Stephen (2007), William Wilberforce – A Biography, Oxford: Lion, ISBN 978-0-09-460780-4, OCLC 72149062
• Vaughan, David J. (2002), Statesman and Saint: The Principled Politics of William Wilberforce, Nashville, Tennessee: Cumberland House, ISBN 978-1-58182-224-3, OCLC 50464553
• Walvin, James (2007), A Short History of Slavery, London: Penguin, ISBN 978-0-14-102798-2, OCLC 75713230
• Wilberforce, R. I; Wilberforce, S. (1838), The Life of William Wilberforce, London: John Murray, OCLC 4023508 online free
• Wolffe, John. "Wilberforce, William (1759–1833)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography(2009) https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/29386

External links

• Definitions from Wiktionary
• Media from Wikimedia Commons
• News from Wikinews
• Quotations from Wikiquote
• Texts from Wikisource
Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Wilberforce, William .
• 200th Anniversary of the Abolition of the British and U.S. Slave Trade
• BBC historic figures: William Wilberforce
• BBC Humber articles on Wilberforce and abolition
• Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation
• "WILBERFORCE, William (1759-1833), of Hull, Yorks. and Wimbledon, Surr". The History of Parliament.
• Works by William Wilberforce at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about William Wilberforce at Internet Archive
• Works by William Wilberforce at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• William Wilberforce – The Great Debate on YouTube
• Wilberforce, BBC Radio 4 In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg (22 February 2007)

[admin]

Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/21


The Most Honourable The Marquess Wellesley
KG PC PC (Ire)
Portrait from the studio of Thomas Lawrence
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
In office: 8 December 1821 – 27 February 1828
Monarch: George IV
Prime Minister: The Earl of Liverpool; George Canning; The Viscount Goderich
Preceded by: The Earl Talbot
Succeeded by: The Marquess of Anglesey
In office: 12 September 1833 – November 1834
Monarch: William IV
Prime Minister: The Earl Grey
Preceded by: The Marquess of Anglesey
Succeeded by: The Earl of Haddington
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
In office: 6 December 1809 – 4 March 1812
Monarch: George III
Prime Minister: Hon. Spencer Perceval
Preceded by: The Earl Bathurst
Succeeded by: Viscount Castlereagh
Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort William
In office: 18 May 1796 – 30 July 1805
Monarch: George III
Prime Minister: William Pitt the Younger; Henry Addington
Preceded by: Sir Alured Clarke (provisional)
Succeeded by: The Marquess Cornwallis
Personal details
Born: 20 June 1760, Dangan Castle, County Meath
Died: 26 September 1842 (aged 82), Knightsbridge, London
Resting place: Eton College Chapel
Nationality: Irish
Political party: Tory
Spouse(s): Hyacinthe-Gabrielle Roland (m. 1794; died 1816)​; Marianne (Caton) Patterson ​(m. 1825)​
Father: Garret Wesley
Alma mater: Christ Church, Oxford

Richard Colley Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley, KG, KP, PC, PC (Ire) (20 June 1760 – 26 September 1842) was an Anglo-Irish politician and colonial administrator. He was styled as Viscount Wellesley until 1781, when he succeeded his father as 2nd Earl of Mornington. In 1799, he was granted the Irish peerage title of Marquess Wellesley. He first made his name as Governor-General of India between 1798 and 1805, and he later served as Foreign Secretary in the British Cabinet and as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He was the fifth Governor-General of India (1798-1805). In 1799, while portraying his enemy as a cruel tyrant needing to be put down, he invaded Mysore and defeated Tipu, the Sultan of Mysore, in a major battle.

He was the eldest son of The 1st Earl of Mornington, an Irish peer, and Anne, the eldest daughter of The 1st Viscount Dungannon. His younger brother, Arthur, was Field Marshal The 1st Duke of Wellington.

Education and early career

Wellesley was born in 1760 in Dangan Castle in County Meath, Ireland, where his family was part of the Ascendancy, the old Anglo-Irish aristocracy. He was educated at the Royal School, Armagh, Harrow School and Eton College, where he distinguished himself as a classical scholar, and at Christ Church, Oxford. He is one of the few men known to have attended both Harrow and Eton.

In 1780, he entered the Irish House of Commons as the member for Trim until the following year when, at his father's death, he became 2nd Earl of Mornington, taking his seat in the Irish House of Lords. He was elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland in 1782, a post he held for the following year.[1] Due to the extravagance of his father and grandfather, he found himself so indebted that he was ultimately forced to sell all the Irish estates. However, in 1781, he was appointed to the coveted position of Custos Rotulorum of Meath.[2]

In 1784, he joined also the British House of Commons as member for the rotten borough of Bere Alston in Devon. Soon afterwards he was appointed a Lord of the Treasury by William Pitt the Younger.

In 1793, he became a member of the Board of Control over Indian affairs; and, although he was best known for his speeches in defence of Pitt's foreign policy, he was gaining the acquaintance with Oriental affairs which made his rule over India so effective from the moment when, in 1797, he accepted the office of Governor-General of India.

Work in India


Wellesley in officer's uniform with star and sash of the Order of St Patrick. Portrait by Robert Home


Arms of Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley, KG, PC, with inescutcheon of pretence for Roland

Mornington seems to have caught Pitt's large political spirit in the period 1798 to 1805. That both had consciously formed the design of expanding their influence in the Indian subcontinent to compensate for the loss of the American colonies is not proved; but the rivalry with France, which in Europe placed Britain at the head of coalition after coalition against the French, made Mornington aware of the necessity of ensuring French power did not reign supreme in India.[3] On the voyage outwards, he formed the design of curbing French influence in the Deccan. Soon after his arrival, in April 1798, he learned that an alliance was being negotiated between Tipu Sultan and France. Mornington resolved to anticipate the action of the Sultan, and ordered preparations for war. The first step was to order the disbandment of the French troops entertained by the Nizam of Hyderabad.[4]

The capture of Mysore followed in February 1799, and the campaign was brought to a swift conclusion by the capture of Seringapatam on 4 May 1799 and the death of Tipu Sultan, who was killed in action. In 1803, the restoration of the Peshwa proved the prelude to the Mahratha war against Sindhia and the raja of Berar, in which his brother Arthur took a leading role. The result of these wars and of the treaties which followed them was that French influence in India was reduced to Pondicherry, and that Britain acquired increased influence in the heartlands of central India. He proved to be a skilled administrator, and picked two of his talented brothers for his staff: Arthur was his military adviser, and Henry was his personal secretary. He founded Fort William College, a training centre intended for those who would be involved in governing India. In connection with this college, he established the governor-general's office, to which civilians who had shown talent at the college were transferred, in order that they might learn something of the highest statesmanship in the immediate service of their chief. He endeavoured to remove some of the restrictions on the trade between Europe and Asia.[5] He took the time to publish an appreciation of British composer Harriet Wainwright's opera Comala in the Calcutta Post on 27 April 1804.

Both the commercial policy of Wellesley and his educational projects brought him into hostility with the court of directors, and he more than once tendered his resignation, which, however, public necessities led him to postpone till the autumn of 1805. He reached England just in time to see Pitt before his death. He had been created a Peer of Great Britain in 1797 as Baron Wellesley, and in 1799 became Marquess Wellesley in the Peerage of Ireland.[note 1][6] He formed an enormous collection of over 2,500 painted miniatures in the Company style of Indian natural history. A motion by James Paull (MP) to impeach Wellesley due to his expulsion of British traders from Oudh was defeated in the House of Commons by 182 votes to 31 in 1808.[7] Mornington also disapproved of liaisons between Company officials and soldiers and locals, seeing them as improper.[8]

Napoleonic Wars

On the fall of the coalition ministry in 1807 Wellesley was invited by George III to join the Duke of Portland's cabinet, but he declined, pending the discussion in parliament of certain charges brought against him in respect of his Indian administration. Resolutions condemning him for the abuse of power were moved in both the Lords and Commons, but defeated by large majorities.

In 1809, Wellesley was appointed ambassador to Spain. He landed at Cádiz just after the Battle of Talavera, and tried unsuccessfully to bring the Spanish government into effective co-operation with his brother, who, through the failure of his allies, had been forced to retreat into Portugal. A few months later, after the duel between George Canning and Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, and the resignation of both, Wellesley accepted the post of Foreign Secretary in Spencer Perceval's cabinet. Unlike his brother Arthur, he was an eloquent speaker, but was subject to inexplicable "black-outs" when he was apparently unaware of his surroundings.

He held this office until February 1812, when he retired, partly from dissatisfaction at the inadequate support given to Wellington by the ministry, but also because he had become convinced that the question of Catholic emancipation could no longer be kept in the background. From early life Wellesley had, like his brother Arthur, been an advocate of Catholic emancipation, and with the claim of the Irish Catholics to justice he henceforward identified himself. On Perceval's assassination he, along with Canning, refused to join Lord Liverpool's administration, and he remained out of office till 1821, criticising with severity the proceedings of the Congress of Vienna and the European settlement of 1814, which, while it reduced France to its ancient limits, left to the other great powers the territory that they had acquired by the Partitions of Poland and the destruction of the Republic of Venice. He was one of the peers who signed the protest against the enactment of the Corn Laws in 1815. His reputation never fully recovered from a fiasco in 1812 when he was expected to make a crucial speech denouncing the new Government, but suffered one of his notorious "black-outs" and sat motionless in his place.

Family life


Hyacinthe-Gabrielle Roland, as painted by Élisabeth Vigée-Lebrun in 1791.

Wellesley lived together for many years with Hyacinthe-Gabrielle Roland, an actress at the Palais Royal. She had three sons and two daughters by Wellesley before he married her on 29 November 1794. He moved her to London, where Hyacinthe was generally miserable, as she never learned English and she was scorned by high society: Lady Caroline Lamb was warned by her mother-in-law, Elizabeth Milbanke, a noted judge of what was socially acceptable, that no respectable woman could afford to be seen in Hyacinthe's company.

Their children were:

• Richard Wellesley (1787–1831), a member of parliament
• Anne Wellesley (1788–1875), who married firstly Sir William Abdy, 7th Baronet, and secondly Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Charles Bentinck
• Hyacinthe Mary Wellesley (1789–1849), who married Edward Littleton, 1st Baron Hatherton
• Gerald Wellesley (1792–1833), who served as the East India Company's resident at Indore.[9]
• The Rev. Henry Wellesley (1794–1866), Principal of New Inn Hall, Oxford.[10]

Through his eldest daughter Lady Charles Bentinck, Wellesley is a great-great-great grandfather to Queen Elizabeth II.

Wellesley also had at least two other illegitimate sons by his teenage mistress, Elizabeth Johnston, including Edward (later his father's secretary), born in Middlesex (1796-1877). Wellesley's children were seen by Richard's other relatives, including his brother Arthur, as greedy, unattractive and cunning, and as exercising an unhealthy influence over their father; in the family circle they were nicknamed "The Parasites".[11]

Following his first wife's death in 1816, he married, on 29 October 1825, the widowed Marianne (Caton) Patterson (died 1853), whose mother Mary was the daughter of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the last surviving signatory of the United States Declaration of Independence; her former sister-in-law was Elizabeth Patterson Bonaparte. Wellington, who was very fond of Marianne (rumour had it that they were lovers) and was then on rather bad terms with his brother, pleaded with her not to marry him, warning her in particular that "The Parasites", (Richard's children by Hyacinthe) would see her as an enemy.[12] The Duke's concern seems to have been misplaced; they had no children, but the marriage was a relatively happy one - "much of the calm and sunshine of his old age can be attributed to Marianne".[13]

Ireland and later life


Lord Wellesley in Garter Robes, with the badge of the Grand Master of the Order of St Patrick around his neck and carrying the white staff of office as Lord Steward, presumably dressed for the coronation of King William IV on 8 September 1831. Westminster Abbey in background. Portrait by Sir Martin Archer Shee and exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1833

In 1821, he was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Catholic emancipation had now become an open question in the cabinet, and Wellesley's acceptance of the viceroyalty was believed in Ireland to herald the immediate settlement of the Catholic claims but they would remain unfulfilled. Some efforts were made to placate Catholic opinion, notably the dismissal of the long-serving Attorney-General for Ireland, William Saurin, whose anti-Catholic views had made him bitterly unpopular. Lord Liverpool died without having grappled with the problem. His successor Canning died only a few months after taking up office as Prime Minister, to be succeeded briefly by Lord Goderich.

On the assumption of office by Wellington, his brother resigned the lord-lieutenancy. He is said to have been deeply hurt by his brother's failure to find a Cabinet position for him (Arthur made the usual excuse that one cannot give a Cabinet seat to everyone who wants one).[14] He had, however, the satisfaction of seeing the Catholic claims settled in the next year by the very statesmen who had declared against them. In 1833, he resumed the office of Lord Lieutenant under Earl Grey, but the ministry soon fell, and, with one short exception, Wellesley did not take any further part in official life.

Death

On his death, he had no successor in the marquessate, but the earldom of Mornington and minor honours devolved on his brother William, Lord Maryborough, on the failure of whose issue in 1863 they fell to the 2nd Duke of Wellington.

He and Arthur, after a long estrangement, had been once more on friendly terms for some years: Arthur wept at the funeral, and said that he knew of no honour greater than being Lord Wellesley's brother.[15]

Wellesley was buried in Eton College Chapel, at his old school.[16]

Legacy


The Marquess Wellesley by John Philip Davis ("Pope" Davis).

The Township of Wellesley, in Ontario, Canada, was named in Richard Wellesley's honour, despite the many references (e.g.: Waterloo, Wellington County) to his brother, Arthur Wellesley in the surrounding area, as was Wellesley Island, located in the St. Lawrence river at Alexandria Bay. Wellesley Island also serves as the last point exiting the United States before crossing to Hill Island, in Canada.

Province Wellesley, in the state of Penang, Malaysia, was named after Richard Wellesley. It was originally part of the state of Kedah. It was ceded to the British East India Company by the Sultan of Kedah in 1798, and has been part of the settlement and state of Penang ever since. It was renamed Seberang Perai ("across the Perai" in the Malay language) not long after independence within Malaya.[17]

The Wellesley Islands off the north coast of Queensland, Australia, were named by Matthew Flinders in honour of Richard Wellesley, as was the largest island in the group, Mornington Island. Flinders is believed to have done this during his imprisonment by the French on Mauritius Island as Wellesley had tried to secure his release.[18][19][20]

Mornington Peninsula, south of Melbourne, was named after him.

As of the summer of 2007, a portrait of Marquess Wellesley hangs in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace.

Notes

1. Having hoped to receive the Order of the Garter, Wellesley was much disappointed by an Irish peerage, which he contemptuously referred to as a "double-gilt potato."

References

1. Waite, Arthur Edward (2007). A New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. vol. I. Cosimo, Inc. p. 400. ISBN 978-1-60206-641-0.
2. "WELLESLEY, Richard Colley, 2nd Earl of Mornington [I] (1760-1842), of Dangan Castle, co. Meath". History of Parliament. Retrieved 18 June 2014.
3. See, e.g., William McCullagh Torrens, The Marquess Wellesley: Architect of Empire(London: Chatto and Windus, 1880); P.E. Roberts, India Under Wellesley (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1929); M.S. Renick, Lord Wellesley and the Indian States (Agra: Arvind Vivek Prakashan, 1987).
4. "Hyderabad Treaty (Appendix F)," The Despatches, Minutes & Correspondence of the Marquess Wellesley During His Administration in India, ed. Robert Montgomery Martin, 5 vols (London: 1836–37), 1:672–675; Roberts, India Under Wellesley, chap. 4, “The Subsidiary Alliance System.”
5. C.H. Phillips, The East India Company, 1784–1834, 2nd. ed., (Manchester: Manchester UP, 1961), 107–108; "Notice of the Board of Trade, 5 October 1798 (Appendix M)," Wellesley Despatches, 2:736–738.
6. Mornington to Pitt, April 1800, The Wellesley Papers: The Life and Correspondence of Richard Colley Wellesley, 2 vols (London: Herbert Jenkins, 1914), 121.
7. "10 MARCH 1806. BRITISH "INVADERS SEEKING TO ESTABLISH A DOMINION AND TO ACQUIRE AN EMPIRE" IN INDIA". Dukes of Buckingham and Chandos. 3 April 2015. Retrieved 28 February 2016.
8. Dalrymple, William (2004). White Mughals: love and betrayal in eighteenth-century India. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-200412-8.
9. Margaret Makepeace. "British Library Untold Lives blog - Gerald Wellesley's secret family". Retrieved 25 April 2017.
10. Bayly, C. A. "Wellesley [formerly Wesley], Richard". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/29008.(Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
11. Joanne Major, Sarah Murden (30 November 2016). A Right Royal Scandal: Two Marriages That Changed History. ISBN 9781473863422. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
12. (Elizabeth Longford 1972, pp. 113–4)
13. Butler, Iris (1973). The Eldest Brother - the Marquess Wellesley 1760-1842. London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 561.
14. (Elizabeth Longford 1972, p. 153)
15. (Elizabeth Longford 1972, p. 394)
16. http://www.geni.com
17. "P 01. A brief history of Prai". butterworthguide.com.my. Retrieved 1 May 2017.
18. "{{{2}}} (entry {{{1}}})". Queensland Place Names. Queensland Government. Retrieved 15 February 2017.
19. "Mornington Island – island in the Shire of Mornington (entry 22847)". Queensland Place Names. Queensland Government. Retrieved 8 November 2020.
20. "Three Letters from Matthew Flinders - No 13 March 1974". State Library of Victoria. Archived from the original on 8 November 2020. Retrieved 8 November2020.
• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Wellesley, Richard Colley Wesley, Marquess". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

• Webb, Alfred (1878). A Compendium of Irish Biography. Dublin: M. H. Gill & son. Unknown parameter |subpage= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
• http://holisticthought.com/india-under- ... wellesley/
• Elizabeth Longford (November 1972). Wellington: Pillar of state. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-00250-5.
• Butler, Iris. The Eldest Brother. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973.
• Ingram, Edward, ed. Two Views of British India: The Private Correspondence of Mr. Dundas and Lord Wellesley, 1798–1801. Bath: Adams and Dart, 1970.
• Harrington, Jack (2010), Sir John Malcolm and the Creation of British India, New York: Palgrave Macmillan., ISBN 978-0-230-10885-1
• Martin, Robert Montgomery, ed. The Despatches, Minutes & Correspondence of the Marquess Wellesley During His Administration in India. 5 vols. London: 1836–37.
• Pearce, Robert Rouiere. Memoirs and Correspondence of the Most Noble Richard Marquess Wellesley. 3 vols. London: 1846.
• Renick, M. S. Lord Wellesley and the Indian States. Agra: Arvind Vivek Prakashan, 1987.
• Roberts, P. E. India Under Wellesley. London: George Bell & Sons, 1929.
• The Wellesley Papers: The Life and Correspondence of Richard Colley Wellesley. 2 vols. London: Herbert Jenkins, 1914.
• Torrens, William McCullagh. The Marquess Wellesley: Architect of Empire. London: Chatto and Windus, 1880.

[admin]

Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 1st Marquess of Hastings [The Earl of Moira]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/21

-- HISTORY OF THE BRITISH INDIAN PRESS DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARQUIS OF HASTINGS, from A Sketch of the History of the Indian Press, During the Last Ten Years: With a Biographical Account of Mr. James Silk Buckingham, by Sandford Arnot

The Most Honourable The Marquess of Hastings
KG PC
Governor-General of India
In office: 4 October 1813 – 9 January 1823
Monarch: George III; George IV
Preceded by: The Lord Minto
Succeeded by: John Adam
As Acting Governor-General
Governor of Malta
In office: 22 March 1824 – 28 November 1826
Monarch: George IV
Preceded by: Hon. Thomas Maitland
Succeeded by: Alexander George Woodford
As Acting Governor
Personal details
Born: 9 December 1754, County Down, Kingdom of Ireland
Died: 28 November 1826 (aged 71), At sea off Naples
Nationality: British
Spouse(s): Flora Campbell, 6th Countess of Loudoun (1780–1840)
Children: 6
Parents: John Rawdon, 1st Earl of Moira; Elizabeth Hastings, 13th Baroness Hastings
Military service
Allegiance: Great Britain
Branch/service: British Army
Rank: General
Commands: Commander-in-Chief of India
Battles/wars: American War of Independence; War of the First Coalition; Anglo-Nepalese War; Third Anglo-Maratha War

Francis Edward Rawdon-Hastings, 1st Marquess of Hastings, KG, PC (9 December 1754 – 28 November 1826), styled The Honourable Francis Rawdon from birth until 1762, Lord Rawdon between 1762 and 1783, The Lord Rawdon from 1783 to 1793 and The Earl of Moira between 1793 and 1816, was an Anglo-Irish politician and military officer who served as Governor-General of India from 1813 to 1823. He had also served with British forces for years during the American Revolutionary War and in 1794 during the War of the First Coalition. He took the additional surname "Hastings" in 1790 in compliance with the will of his maternal uncle, Francis Hastings, 10th Earl of Huntingdon.[1]

Background, education and early military career

Hastings was born at Moira, County Down, the son of John Rawdon, 1st Earl of Moira and Elizabeth Hastings, 13th Baroness Hastings, who was a daughter of the 9th Earl of Huntingdon.[2] He was baptised at St. Audoen's Church, Dublin, on 2 January 1755.[3] He grew up in Moira and in Dublin.[4] He joined the British Army on 7 August 1771 as an ensign in the 15th Foot (the going rate for purchasing a commission for this rank was £200). From that time on his life was spent entirely in the service of his country.[5] He was at Harrow School and matriculated at University College, Oxford,[1] but dropped out. He became friends there with Banastre Tarleton. With his uncle Lord Huntingdon, he went on the Grand Tour.[6] On 20 October 1773, he was promoted to lieutenant in the 5th Foot. He returned to England to join his regiment, and sailed for America on 7 May 1774.

American War of Independence

See also: American Revolutionary War

Battle of Bunker Hill


Trumbull's The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill

Rawdon was posted at Boston as a lieutenant in the 5th Regiment of Foot's Grenadier company, which was then under the command of Captain Francis Marsden. He first saw action at the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Bunker Hill. Serving with the grenadiers, he participated in the second assault against Breed's Hill (which failed), and the third assault against the redoubt. His superior, Captain Harris, was wounded beside him. At the age of 21, Lord Rawdon took command of the company for the third and final assault.[7] When the troops of the third assault began to falter, Rawdon stood atop of the American redoubt, waving the British ensign. John Burgoyne noted in dispatches: "Lord Rawdon has this day stamped his fame for life." He also was wounded during the assault.[1] He was promoted captain, and given a company in the 63rd Foot.[8] After having recognized him upon entering the redoubt, it is said[by whom?] that it was Lieutenant Rawdon that executed the already mortally wounded American general Joseph Warren by shooting him through the head.[citation needed] Lord Rawdon is depicted in John Trumbull's famous painting, The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Rawdon is in the far background holding the British ensign.

Campaigns in the Carolinas and New York, 1775–76

Main articles: Landing at Kip's Bay and Battle of White Plains

He was appointed Aide-de-camp to General Sir Henry Clinton, and sailed with him on the expedition to Brunswick Town, North Carolina, on the Cape Fear River, and then to the repulse at Fort Moultrie, Charleston, South Carolina. He returned with him to New York. On 4 August, he dined with General Clinton, Admiral Lord Howe, Lord Cornwallis, General Vaughan, and others.[9] During the Battle of Long Island, he was at headquarters with Clinton.[10]

On 15 September, Rawdon led his men at Kip's Bay, an amphibious landing on Manhattan island.[11] The next day, he led his troops in support of the Light Infantry that attacked Harlem Heights until the Americans withdrew. He participated at the landings at Pell's Point. The British pressed the Americans to White Plains, where on 1 November the Americans withdrew from their entrenchments.

Rhode Island, England, and New York

On 8 December Rawdon landed with Clinton at Rhode Island, securing the ports for the British Navy. On 13 January 1777, with Clinton, he departed for London, arriving 1 March. During a ball at Lord George Germain's, he met Lafayette, who was visiting London.[12]

Returning to America in July, while Howe went to his Philadelphia campaign, Rawdon went with Clinton to the New York headquarters. He participated in the battles of the New York Highlands, where on 7 October, Fort Constitution (opposite West Point) was captured. However, this was too late to link up with General Burgoyne at Albany.[13]

Rawdon was sent to Philadelphia with dispatches and returned to New York for the winter, where he raised a regiment, called the Volunteers of Ireland, recruited from deserters and Irish Loyalists. Promoted colonel in command of this regiment, Rawdon went with Clinton to Philadelphia.[14] starting out on 18 June 1778, he went with Clinton during the withdrawal from Philadelphia to New York, and saw action at the Battle of Monmouth.[15] He was appointed adjutant general. Rawdon was sent to learn news of the Battle of Rhode Island.[16]

At New York, on 3 September 1779, he quarreled with Clinton, and resigned his position as adjutant general.[17] He served with the Volunteers of Ireland during the raid on Staten Island by Lord Stirling on 15 January 1780.[18]

Southern Campaign

Main article: Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War

He went south to the Siege of Charleston with reinforcements. After the city fell to the British, Lord Cornwallis posted him at Camden (16 August 1780)[1] as the British sought to occupy South Carolina. Rawdon commanded the British left wing at the Battle of Camden. When Cornwallis went into Virginia, he left Rawdon in effective command in the South.


The Marquess of Hastings as Governor-General of India by Joshua Reynolds

Perhaps his most noted achievement was the victory in 1781 at the Battle of Hobkirk's Hill, in which, in command of only a small force, he defeated by superior military skill and determination, a much larger body of Americans.[19] Thinking (in error) that General Nathanael Greene had moved his artillery away, Rawdon attacked Greene's left wing. Rawdon quickly concentrated his entire force on the American left flank, using the military advantage of local superiority, which forced the American line to collapse and abandon the field in disorder.[20]

However, Rawdon was forced to begin a gradual retreat to Charleston. He relieved the Siege of Ninety-Six, evacuating its small garrison and conducting a limited pursuit of American troops. He withdrew his forces to Charleston. In July 1781, in poor health, he gave up his command. On his return to Great Britain, he was captured at sea by François Joseph Paul de Grasse, but was exchanged.[21] After Rawdon's departure, the British evacuated Charleston as the war drew to a close. They took thousands of Loyalists and freed slaves with them, having promised freedom to slaves of rebels who joined their lines, resettling these groups in Nova Scotia and the Caribbean.

Peace years

On his arrival in England, Rawdon was honoured by King George III, who created him an English peer (Baron Rawdon) in March 1783. In 1789 his mother succeeded to the barony of Hastings, and Rawdon added the surname of Hastings to his own.[19]

Rawdon became active in associations in London. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1787 and Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London in 1793.[22][23] For 1806–08 he was Grand Master of the Free Masons.

In May 1789 he acted as the Duke of York's second in his duel with Lieut.-Colonel Lennox on Wimbledon Common.[1]

French Revolutionary Wars

See also: French Revolutionary Wars: Campaigns of 1794

Following the declaration of war in 1793 of France upon Great Britain, Rawdon was appointed major general, on 12 October 1793. Sent by the Pitt ministry, Rawdon launched an expedition into Ostend, France, in 1794.[24][25] He marched to join with the army of the Duke of York, at Alost. The French general Pichegru, with superior numbers, forced the British back toward their base at Antwerp. Rawdon left the expedition, feeling Pitt had broken promises.[26]

Political career

Rawdon sat for Randalstown in the Irish House of Commons from 1781 until 1783. That year he was created Baron Rawdon, of Rawdon, in the County of York.[27] In 1787, he became friends with the Prince of Wales, and loaned him many thousands of pounds. In 1788 he became embroiled in the Regency Crisis.

In 1789, he took the surname Hastings in accordance with his uncle's will. He succeeded his father as 2nd Earl of Moira on 20 June 1793, and thereafter served in the House of Lords for three decades.

Donington Hall


Donington Hall

Inheriting Donington Hall in Leicestershire from his uncle, Rawdon rebuilt it in 1790–93 in the Gothic style; the architect was William Wilkins the Elder. It is now a Grade II* listed building.

He placed the estate at the disposal of the Bourbon Princes upon their exile in England following the French Revolution. He is said to have left a signed cheque-book in each bedroom for the occupant to use at pleasure.[28]

Plot to become Prime Minister

In 1797 it was rumoured briefly that Rawdon (Moira) would replace Pitt as Prime Minister. There was some discontent with Pitt over his policies regarding the war with France. Additionally, Pitt's long tenure in office had given him ample opportunity to annoy various political grandees, including but not limited to The Duke of Leeds and Lords Thurlow and Lansdowne.

In mid-May a combination of these various figures, coupled with a handful of Members of Parliament, proposed to make Rawdon (Moira) the Prime Minister. Having fought in the American War and having led an expedition to Quiberon, he commanded widespread respect. His relationship to the Prince of Wales also established him as a potential rival to Pitt, who was supported strongly by George III.[29]

The prime motivation for the plan of having Rawdon (Moira) become Prime Minister was to secure peace with France, the plotters having come to believe (somewhat unfairly) that Pitt was an obstacle to this objective. But their plan collapsed barely a month later in mid-June because of a lack of support from the political establishment. Additionally, when Rawdon (Moira) wrote to the King to propose the change of chief ministers, the monarch ignored him. Thus the proposal came to nothing.[29]

He became Commander-in-Chief, Scotland with the rank of full general in September 1803.[30]

Later politics

Rawdon was a long-standing advocate of Irish issues, in particular Catholic Emancipation. At one point he was described by the Irish revolutionary Wolfe Tone as "The Irish Lafayette".[31]

Becoming a Whig in politics, he entered government in 1806 as part of the Ministry of All the Talents as Master-General of the Ordnance, which enabled him to carry a philanthropic measure, which he had promoted since his first entry into the House of Lords, the Debtor and Creditor Bill for relief of poor debtors.[19] However, he resigned his post on the fall of the ministry the next year.[1] He was also Constable of the Tower (of London) from 1806 to his death. Being a close associate of the Prince-Regent, Moira was asked by him to form a Whig government after the assassination of Spencer Perceval in 1812 ended that ministry. Both of Moira's attempts to create a governing coalition failed, but as a mark of the prince's respect he was appointed to the Order of the Garter in that year.[19] The Tories returned to power under the Earl of Liverpool. On 6 December 1816, after the conclusion of the Anglo-Nepalese War (see below), Moira was raised to the rank of Marquess of Hastings together with the subsidiary titles Viscount Loudoun and Earl of Rawdon.[32]

He also became the patron of Thomas Moore, the Irish poet. Moore visited his patron's new seat, Donington Hall, and wrote about his impressions of it. "I thought it all exceedingly fine and grand, but most uncomfortable."[28] Moore was later disappointed when Moira, having been appointed Governor General of India, did not offer to take him to India on his staff. The two men only met one more time.[33]

Governor-General of India


The Marquess of Hastings as Governor-General of India

Through the influence of the Prince-Regent, Moira was appointed Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort William, effectively the Governor-General of India, on 11 November 1812.[34] His tenure as Governor-General was a memorable one, overseeing the victory in the Gurkha War (1814–1816); the final conquest of the Marathas in 1818; and the purchase of the island of Singapore in 1819.[35]

After delays clearing his affairs, he reached Madras on 11 September 1813. In October, he settled in at Calcutta and assumed office. British India then consisted of Madras, Bengal, and Bombay. He commanded an army of 15,000 British regulars, a Bengal army of 27 regiments of native infantry, and eight regiments of cavalry; a Madras army, led by General John Abercrombie of 24 regiments of native infantry, and eight regiments of native cavalry.[36]

Anglo-Nepalese War

Main article: Anglo-Nepalese War

In May 1813, the British declared war against the Gurkhas of Nepal. Hastings sent four divisions in separate attacks led by General Bennet Marley with 8,000 men against Kathmandu, General John Sullivan Wood with 4,000 men against Butwal, General Sir David Ochterlony with 10,000 men against Amar Singh Thapa, and General Robert Rollo Gillespie, with 3,500 men against Nahan, Srinagar, and Garhwal. Only Ochterlony had some success; Gillespie was killed. After inconclusive negotiations, Hastings reinforced Ochterlony to 20,000 men, who then won the battle of Makwanpur on 28 February. The Gurkhas then sued for peace, under the Sugauli Treaty.[37]

Third Anglo-Maratha War

See also: Third Anglo-Maratha War

After raids by Pindaris in January 1817, Hastings led a force at Hindustan in the North; in the South, the Army of the Deccan, under the command of General Sir Thomas Hislop. The Peshwa was defeated by William Fullarton Elphinstone on the Poona. Appa Sahib was defeated at the battle of Nagpur. Hislop defeated Holkar at the Battle of Mahidpur. These events effectively established the supremacy of British power in India.[38]

Diplomacy

Rawdon was active diplomatically, protecting weaker Indian states. His domestic policy in India was also largely successful, seeing the repair of the Mughul canal system in Delhi in 1820, as well as educational and administrative reforms, and encouraging press freedom.[38] He confirmed the purchase of Singapore from the Sultan of Jahore, by Sir Stamford Raffles, in January 1819.

His last years of office were embittered by then-notorious matter, the affairs of the W. Palmer and Company banking house. The whole affair was mixed up with insinuations against Lord Hastings, especially charging him with having shown favouritism towards one of the partners in the firm. He was later exonerated but the experience embittered him.[38]


Tomb of Lord Hastings in Hastings Gardens, Valletta

He also became increasingly estranged from the East India Company's Board of Control (see Company rule in India). He resigned in 1821 but did not leave India until early 1823.[38] He was appointed Governor of Malta in 1824 but died at sea off Naples two years later aboard HMS Revenge, while attempting to return home with his wife. She returned his body to Malta, and following his earlier directions, cut off his right hand and preserved it, to be buried with her when she died.[38] His body was then laid to rest in a large marble sarcophagus in Hastings Gardens, Valletta. His hand was eventually interred, clasped with hers, in the family vault at Loudoun Kirk.[23]

Legacy

• He was awarded the freedom of the city of Dublin in recognition of his service in America.[39]
• Loyalists whom he rescued from the Siege of Ninety Six during the American Revolution were resettled by the Crown and granted land in Nova Scotia. They named their township Rawdon in his honour.
• Hastings County, Ontario, and three of its early townships were named after him, by Loyalists who were resettled in Upper Canada after the American Revolution.[40]
• HMS Moira was named in his honour in 1805, as was the Moira River in Ontario, Canada.

Family


Shield of arms of Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 1st Marquess of Hastings, KG, PC

On 12 July 1804, at the age of 50, he married Flora Campbell, 6th Countess of Loudoun, daughter of Major-General James Mure-Campbell, 5th Earl of Loudoun and Lady Flora Macleod. They had six children:

• Flora Elizabeth Rawdon-Hastings (11 February 1806 – 5 July 1839), lady in waiting to Queen Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, died unmarried.
• Hon. Francis George Augustus (1807–1807), died in infancy.
• George Augustus Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 2nd Marquess of Hastings (4 February 1808 – 13 January 1844)
• Sophia Frederica Christina Rawdon-Hastings (1 February 1809 – 28 December 1859), married John Crichton-Stuart, 2nd Marquess of Bute, mother of John Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute.
• Selina Constance Rawdon-Hastings (1810 – 8 November 1867), married Charles Henry and had children.
• Adelaide Augusta Lavinia Rawdon-Hastings (25 February 1812 – 6 December 1860), married Sir William Murray, 7th Baronet of Octertyre.
Through his brother, the Hon. John Theophilus Rawdon, he was uncle to Elizabeth, Lady William Russell.[41]

In popular culture

• The character of Rawdon Crawley in William Makepeace Thackeray's 1847–1848 novel Vanity Fair is named after him.
• He appears as Francis Rawdon Hastings, the Second Earl of Moira, in Stephanie Barron's 2006 novel Jane and the Barque of Frailty .

Portraits


Marquess of Hastings by Hugh Douglas Hamilton (c. 1801)


Marquess of Hastings, Governor-General of India by Joshua Reynolds (c. 1812)


Francis Rawdon, Marquess of Hastings. Engraving. Fisher, Son & Co, London. 1829


Francis Rawdon, Marquess of Hastings by Henry Raeburn. 1813

References

1. Beevor, p. 58.
2. Chisholm 1911, p. 53.
3. "Registers of St Audoen's Church". Irish Genealogy. Retrieved 19 October 2019.
4. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 21)
5. Chisholm 1911, pp. 53–54.
6. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 22)
7. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 27)
8. Nelson, Paul David (2005). Francis Rawdon-Hastings, Marquess of Hastings: Soldier, Peer of the Realm, Governor-General of India. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press. ISBN 9780838640715.
9. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 42)
10. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 32)
11. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 47)
12. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 55)
13. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 56)
14. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 61)
15. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 62)
16. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 65)
17. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 67)
18. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 69)
19. Chisholm 1911, p. 54.
20. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 95)
21. Paul David Nelson (7 May 2007). "Lord Rawdon, Baron Rawdon, Earl of Moira, Marquess of Hastings". banastretarleton.org. Archived from the original on 29 January 2009. Retrieved 26 October 2008.
22. "Fellows Details". Royal Society. Retrieved 23 January 2018.
23. Beevor, p. 59.
24. Brown, J. (1851) A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans, Vol.IV.
25. James, C. (1805), A New and Enlarged Military Dictionary, 2nd ed.
26. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 121)
27. "No. 12419". The London Gazette. 1 March 1783. p. 1.
28. Beevor, p. 60.
29. Hague, William J. (September 2004). William Pitt the Younger: A Biography. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-714719-9.p. 407.
30. "Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 1st Marquess of Hastings". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 29 November2014.
31. Kelly p. 228.
32. "No. 17198". The London Gazette. 7 December 1816. p. 2314.
33. Kelly pp. 226–229.
34. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 148)
35. "Francis Rawdon- Hastings, 1st Marquess of Hastings | eHISTORY". ehistory.osu.edu. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
36. (Paul David Nelson 2005, p. 162)
37. (Paul David Nelson 2005, pp. 164–165)
38. Chisholm 1911, p. 55.
39. Morley p. 286.
40. Boyce, Gerald E. (1967). Historic Hastings, Belleville: Hastings County Council.
41. Reynolds, K. D. (2020). "Russell [née Rawdon], Elizabeth Anne [known as Lady William Russell] (1793–1874), hostess". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. doi:10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.90000380152. ISBN 9780198614128. Retrieved 23 December 2020.

Sources

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hastings, Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 1st Marquess of". Encyclopædia Britannica. 13 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 53–55.
• "Hastings, Francis Rawdon". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12568. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
• Paul David Nelson (2005). Francis Rawdon-Hastings, Marquess of Hastings: Soldier, Peer of the Realm, Governor-General of India. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. ISBN 978-0-8386-4071-5.
• Beevor, R. J. (1931). Hastings of Hastings. Printed for Private Circulation.
• Harrington, Jack (2010). Sir John Malcolm and the Creation of British India. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-10885-1.
• Kelly, Ronan (2009). Bard of Erin: The Life of Thomas Moore. Penguin Books.
• Morley, Vincent (2002). Irish opinion and the American Revolution, 1760–83. Cambridge University Press.

External links

• Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by the Marquess of Hastings
• Ninety Six National Historic Site
• Francis, Lord Rawdon – Colonel
• Battle of Hobkirk's Hill
• Rediscovering Hobkirk's Hill

[admin]

Dharma Sabha
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/21

Dharma Sabha was formed in 1829 in Calcutta by Radhakanta Deb. The organization was established mainly to counter the ongoing social reform movements led by protagonists such as Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Henry Derozio. More specifically, the impetus of forming the organization came from a new law enacted by the colonial British rule which banned the practice of sati in the country; the focus of the new association was to repel the law which was seen as an intrusion by the British into the religious affairs of the indigenous people by some sections of the Hindu community.[1] Dharma Sabha filed an appeal in the Privy Council against the ban on Sati by Lord William Bentinck as it went against the assurance given by George III of non-interference in Hindu religious affairs; however, their appeal was rejected and the ban on Sati was upheld in 1832.[2][3]

The Dharma Sabha campaigned against the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856 and submitted a petition against the proposal with nearly four times more signatures than the one submitted for it by Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar.However [4][5] Lord Dalhousie personally finalized the bill despite the opposition and it being considered a flagrant breach of Hindu customs as prevalent then, and it was passed by Lord Canning.[6][7]

The organization soon morphed into a 'society in defense of Hindu way of life or culture' which then turns as a think tank for [RSS Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh].[8]

References

1. Ahmed, A.S (1976). Social ideas and social change in Bengal, 1818-1835. Ṛddhi.
2. S. Muthiah (2008). Madras, Chennai: A 400-year Record of the First City of Modern India. Palaniappa Brothers. pp. 484–. ISBN 978-81-8379-468-8. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
3. Crispin Bates (26 March 2013). Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857: Volume I: Anticipations and Experiences in the Locality. SAGE Publications. pp. 48–. ISBN 978-81-321-1336-2. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
4. H. R. Ghosal (1957). "THE REVOLUTION BEHIND THE REVOLT (A comparative study of the causes of the 1857 uprising)". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 20: 293–305. JSTOR 44304480.
5. Pratima Asthana (1974). Women's Movement in India. Vikas Publishing House. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-7069-0333-1. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
6. Amit Kumar Gupta (5 October 2015). Nineteenth-Century Colonialism and the Great Indian Revolt. Taylor & Francis. pp. 30–. ISBN 978-1-317-38668-1. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
7. Belkacem Belmekki (2008). "A Wind of Change: The New British Colonial Policy in Post-Revolt India". AEDEAN: Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-americanos. 2 (2): 111–124. JSTOR 41055330.
8. Kopf, D (1969). British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization, 1773-1835. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 271.

[admin]

Indian Journalism in the Colonial Crucible: A nineteenth-century story of political protest
by Prasun Sonwalkar
Journalism Studies, Vol. 16, No. 5, 624–636
2015

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

-- The Printing Press in India: Its Beginnings and Early Development, Being a Quartercentenary Commemoratino Study of the Advent of Printing in India (in 1556), by Anant Kakba Priolkar, With a Foreword by Shri Chintaman D. Deshmukh, and An Historical Essay on the Konkani Language, by J.H. Da Cunha Rivara, 1958

-- Calcutta School-Book Society, by Wikipedia

-- Krista Purana, by Wikipedia

-- Journal of the Buddhist Text Society of India, Volume 4, edited by Sarat Chandra Das, C.I.E.

India’s imperfect democracy may be underpinned by an equally imperfect journalism, but the symbiotic relationship between the two is rarely acknowledged or highlighted. The fact remains that India’s democracy is enabled and enhanced by its roots in the ancient tradition of dialogue, debate and argument, which was transformed by the growth of print journalism since the late eighteenth century. In the modern sense, this tradition matured in the acid bath of India’s freedom struggle, when journalism and journalist-leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru played a central role before independence in 1947. This paper focuses on a forgotten chapter in India’s modern political history, when the idea of a free press became the locus of the earliest example of constitutional agitation. In the colonial cauldron of the early nineteenth century, protest by Indian and British liberals against press licensing and other restrictions imposed by the East India Company took the form of “memorials” (petitions) addressed to the Supreme Court in Calcutta1 and to the King-in-Council in London. The agitation begun in Calcutta in 1823 was carried forward in London, which later curbed the Company-state’s restrictive acts towards the press in India, until the Mutiny of 1857. The agitation also included the daring act of Rammohun Roy to close his Persian journal, Mirat-ul-Akhbar, to protest against restrictions imposed by acting Governor-General John Adam. Recalling this chapter of political protest enhances our understanding of the dominant theme of politics in Indian journalism, which continues today, despite rampant commercialisation and corruption.

KEYWORDS East India Company; freedom of the press; memorials; press; press ordinance; protest

Introduction

The 2014 general elections in India—considered the largest democratic exercise in the world—provide a convenient backdrop to explore the symbiotic and deep relationship between politics and journalism in India. Superlatives are often used to describe various aspects about India, from its 1.2 billion plus population, to levels of poverty, to the growing number of millionaires and billionaires. Superlatives are also used to describe the ways in which the Indian news media covered—or did not cover—the 2014 elections. In the context of deepening of the corporate–politician nexus since the liberalisation of India’s economy in the early 1990s, there are indications that the 2014 elections witnessed unprecedented levels of commerce and compromise on the part of the news media. Large numbers of candidates, constituencies, parties and issues were systematically marginalised in news discourse in favour of certain politicians and their parties. American-style branding of candidates and parties was taken to new highs of manufacturing consent as thousands of techno-savvy volunteers lent their expertise (including holograms) to selectively influence the discourse. Manoj Ladwa, who was the head of public relations of Bharatiya Janata Party’s campaign, said after the party’s landslide electoral victory: “We studied the Barack Obama and Tony Blair campaigns, but this was a [Narendra] Modi campaign and it will be seen as a benchmark in political communication on media courses” (Sonwalkar 2014, 11).

The news coverage of the elections presents itself as a rare case study of professionalisation of political communication and western-style methods being deployed in a traditional society that is undergoing transformation at various levels, but continues to face serious challenges of poverty, health, education and security. If the news coverage of the 2014 elections is seen as plunging new depths of corruption, misuse and manipulation— partly captured in the phrase “paid news”, which means politicians paying for propaganda masquerading as news content—it also reflects and reiterates a reality that is so banal and boring that it is rarely acknowledged or noticed. It is the reality of politics being the default setting of Indian journalism, an aspect that defies Murdoch-style dumbing down of news content for commercial gains. Since the early 1990s, news content has become light as part of the “Murdochization” of Indian journalism (Sonwalkar 2002), with increasing focus on celebrities, cinema, crime and cricket, but the historical hard-wiring of politics in Indian society, as reflected in journalism, has retained its salience. Political events and issues are often narrated in Bollywood-style imagery and idioms, particularly on television, but despite the rapacious pursuit of profit and corruption by news organisations and some journalists, the dominance of politics, party leaders and issues has continued across the news media, including print, radio, television and the rapidly expanding social media. This article focuses on this core, umbilical link between journalism and politics in India, and recalls the first—but largely forgotten—chapter of protest in the early nineteenth century that set the template for subsequent political agitations, culminating in India’s independence in 1947.

The origin of modern journalism in India in the late eighteenth century presents a unique case study of the idea of “British journalism abroad”, of how the ways of doing journalism travelled from England to various colonies of the British Empire, how the “model” was received, adopted and constructively adapted by the local elites, and how journalism of this period prepared the groundwork for the use of the press as a powerful weapon during freedom struggles, particularly in non-Dominion or non-Settler colonies such as India. According to standard historical accounts, Indian nationalism began in 1885 with the formation of the Indian National Congress, or during the preparatory phase of agitational politics in the preceding decade. However, the vast material comprising hand-written records of the East India Company (EIC) and surviving copies of the first English and Indian-language journals suggest that by as early as 1835, print journalism had emerged as a site where the first impulses of Indian nationalism were being expressed. Journalism had also become an effective tool for social and religious reform. It had become a key aspect of what was then a new form of political protest—constitutional agitation—which included petitions to EIC officials, town hall meetings in Calcutta, seeking legal alternatives and raising issues through the press. Later, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders of India’s freedom struggle followed the example set by the the first leader-journalists such as Rammohun Roy, H. L. V. Derozio and Bhabani Charan Bandopadhyay, and used journalism to powerful effect. By 1835, Indians were already using print journalism to lecture to the British on how to run their empire, and writing extensively about the Irish and the revolutionary struggles in Spain and Italy as part of veiled attacks on the company’s rule in India. This focus on politics in the early phase of Indian journalism helps partly explain the persistence of politics as the dominant theme in modern India’s news media.

The next section places the origins of modern journalism in India in historical context and summarises key developments until the early nineteenth century. Journalism itself became the focus of the first political struggle in the colonial cauldron at the time, as top officials of the EIC saw the press as a threat and imposed severe restrictions. Matters came to a head in 1823, when acting Governor-General John Adam took two steps: deporting the irrepressible editor John Silk Buckingham, whose Calcutta Journal often launched scathing attacks on the Company government and its leading individuals; and issuing a Press Ordinance that imposed severe restrictions on the press. It is the response to this Press Ordinance by leading Indians in Calcutta that provides a remarkable and first example of modern ideas and the press being used in political protests in colonial India. As Gaonkar (1999, 17) observed, “Modernity is more often perceived as a lure than as threat, and the people (not just the elite) everywhere, at every national or cultural site, rise to meet it, negotiate it, and appropriate it in their own fashion”. The Indian response to the Press Ordinance took the form of two memorials (petitions)—one addressed to the Supreme Court in Calcutta and the other to the King-in-Council (so-called when the sovereign is acting on the advice of the Council); and in an act described as “daring” at the time, social reformer Rammohun Roy closed his Persian journal, Mirat-ul-Akhbar, in protest. As historian R. C. Dutt put it, “It was the start of that system of constitutional agitation for political rights which their countrymen have learnt to value so much in the present day” (Majumdar 1965, 234). The response also included transnational protest when Buckingham, deported to England, continued his diatribe in print against the Company government from London. This article, however, focuses on the Indian response: the two memorials and the closure of Roy’s journal.

The Context of Early Indian Journalism

This period in Indian journalism history was marked by political flux, when the Mughal Empire was in decline and a commercial enterprise from England—the East India Company—was coming to terms with the reality of having assumed political power over most of the sub-continent. It was a period of much uncertainty, when nothing was a given. In mid-eighteenth century Mughal India, slowly but surely, the old was giving way to the new in complex ways. The Mughal Empire was losing its influence, while the EIC gained political power and influence after the Battle of Plassey (1757), Battle of Buxar (1764) and the Treaty of Allahabad (1765), in which the Mughal Emperor formally acknowledged British dominance in the region by granting EIC the diwani, or the right to collect revenue, from Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The Supreme Court was founded in Calcutta in 1774. The EIC ceased to be simply a trading company and transformed into a powerful imperial agency with an army of its own, exercising control over vast territories with millions of people. As Thomas B. Macaulay said during a speech in the House of Commons on 10 July 1833: “It is the strangest of all governments; but it is designed for the strangest of all empires”. Elsewhere, the close of the eighteenth century was a period of cataclysmic change: American and French Revolutions had a profound influence not only on rulers in England but also on officials of the EIC. Radical politics began to emerge in England from the 1750s, which was strongly resisted by the forces of status quo. The same fears gripped the early officers of the expansionist EIC as it established itself in Calcutta and spread its influence across India.

Journalism emerged amidst such conditions and uncertain attempts by the Company government to introduce new, modern ways of governance and other measures, most of which proved controversial and faced opposition from Indians. The Company government, at the time engaged in battles across India, watched uneasily as English-language journals were launched from 1780 onwards, when James Augustus Hicky published the first journal, Hicky’s Gazette Or Calcutta General Advertiser. Alert to the dangers of Jacobinism [supporters of a centralized republican state and strong central government powers and/or supporters of extensive government intervention to transform society], the EIC tried to control the press and prevent its growth from as early as 1799, by when British entrepreneurs and agency house came together to launch more journals. The question of freedom of the press first exercised colonial authorities at the time of Richard Wellesley’s governorship (1798–1805), when the Company government interpreted any criticism in journals as lurking Jacobinism. In 1799, Wellesley introduced regulations for the press, which stipulated that no newspaper be published until the proofs of the whole paper, including advertisements, were submitted to the colonial government and approved; violation invited deportation to England. Until 1818, the regulations applied only to the English journals, because until that year, there were no journals in Indian languages.

The Company government succeeded in controlling the press until 1818, by when the combination of a proliferating commercially driven print culture, a growing British community, a new generation of British editors and administrators, Christian missionaries and Indian elites alert to new ideas and impulses, ensured the growth of journalism and the idea of a free press. Several English-language journals followed Hicky’s journal, as members of the small British community in Calcutta sought to recreate the British world and cultural conditions in England: “[As] the German demands his national beverages wherever he settles, so the Briton insists on his newspaper” (Mills 1924, 103). Calcutta became the setting for the origins of Indian journalism and the crucible of the first sustained cultural encounter between Indian intellectuals and the west. In the late eighteenth century (1780), the white population in the town was less than 1000; in the 1837 census, 3138 English were returned, with soldiers forming the main element of the community. A part of Calcutta came to be known as the “white town”, where the British based themselves and sought to recreate British cultural life through news, goods, music, theatre and personnel that arrived and left for England by sea. As Marshall (2000, 308–309) noted, the “vast majority of the British were not interested in any exchange of ideas with the Indians. They did not expect to give anything, still less to receive. They were solely concerned with sustaining British cultural life for themselves with as few concessions as possible to an alien environment”.

Yet, members of the Indian intelligentsia, such as Rammohun Roy, living in Calcutta responded in creative ways to aspects of European culture that became available to them. Some members of the British community, on their own, developed cultural contacts with the local population, notably Sir William Jones, Nathaniel Halhed, Charles Wilkins and, for evangelical reasons, the Baptist missionaries in nearby Serampore. Indian scholars employed at the Fort William College also brought them in close contact with the British. As EIC’s presence spread and grew in its influence, Calcutta became the centre of governance, attracting unofficial Britons seeking to make a fortune, thus setting the scene for discursive interactions with the local population at various levels, including in the field of journalism (such as it was then). Indian intellectuals such as Roy were quick to absorb new ideas from the west. At the time, as Raichaudhuri (1988, 3) noted, “The excitement over the literature, history and philosophy of Europe as well as the less familiar scientific knowledge was deep and abiding”.

At the heart of this “excitement” was the technology of print, which enabled the flow of ideas and news from the metropole to the colonial periphery, vice versa, and slowly beyond Calcutta to the other two presidencies of Madras and Bombay and elsewhere. The printing press first arrived in India in Goa with Portuguese missionaries in the mid-sixteenth century. Several religious texts were later printed in Konkani, Tamil and other Indian languages, but it was not until the late eighteenth century that the first English-language journals were launched in Calcutta, followed by journals in Bengali, Persian and Hindi in Calcutta, and in other Indian languages in Madras and Bombay. In the last two decades of the eighteenth century, “Calcutta rapidly developed into the largest centre of printing in the sub-continent … appropriate to its paramount importance to the British as an administrative, commercial and social base” (Shaw 1981, ix).

Hicky catered to the small but expanding British community, which was able to sustain more English journals, some of them launched with the support of the EIC. As Marshall (2000, 324) noted, “White Calcutta sustained a remarkable number of newspapers and journals in English. Between 1780 and 1800, 24 weekly or monthly magazines came into existence … The total circulation of English-language publications was put at 3000 … These are astonishing figures for so small a community”. It was the era of journalist as publicist, as editors—in England and in colonial India—stamped their personalities on their journals, often entering into vicious attacks against rival editors and officials of the EIC. Hicky bitterly attacked Governor-General Warren Hastings, chief justice of the Supreme Court Sir Elijah Impey and others in the British community in Calcutta. The English journals were mainly non-political in character, sustained by advertising and had the British community as its audience. Besides some criticism of the EIC by mostly anonymous letter writers to the editor, the journals published orders of the colonial government, Indian news, personal news, notes on fashion, extracts from papers published in England, parliamentary reports, poems, newsletters and reports from parts of Europe. Editorials and other content would mainly interest the British community.

If Hicky’s journal is better known historically for publication of scandals, scurrilous personal attacks and risqué advertisements selling sex and sin, he was also the first to fight against the colonial government, then almost single-handed, to defend the liberty of the press. He wrote: “Mr Hicky considers the Liberty of the Press to be essential to the very existence of an Englishman and a free G-t. The subject should have full liberty to declare his principles, and opinions, and every act which tends to coerce that liberty is tyrannical and injurious to the COMMUNITY” (Barns 1940, 49, italics and capitals in original; in the days of letter press, “G-t” stood for “Government”). Hicky was soon hounded by Hastings and Impey, fined, imprisoned and his journal closed in March 1782. He died in penury in 1802. He was the first of several editors of English journals to invite the wrath of EIC officials who were wary of the effects of the ideas spawned by the French Revolution in India, and were highly sensitised to any threats to the existing order. By 1800, some journals closed for want of advertising and subscription, while others closed when British editors were deported to England after publishing material that was considered unacceptable by the EIC. Editors who attracted EIC’s ire and found themselves on ships back to England included William Duane, editor of Bengal Journal, removed as editor and almost deported in 1791, and finally deported as editor of Indian World in 1794; Charles Maclean, editor of Bengal Hurkaru, deported in 1798; James Silk Buckingham, editor of Calcutta Journal, and his assistant, Sandford Arnot, deported in 1823; and C. J. Fair, editor of Bombay Gazette, also deported in 1823.

The year 1818 had witnessed developments that catalysed the growth of journalism in an expanding colonial India. As noted above, deportation remained a key instrument to discipline British editors, but the measure could not be applied to editors who were Indians or to Europeans born in India. To remove the anomaly, the Marquess of Hastings, who was governor-general from 1813 to 1823, removed the 1799 censorship and issued a new set of rules in 1818. In a circular to all editors and publishers in Calcutta, he set out guidelines with a view to prevent the publication of topics considered dangerous or objectionable, or face deportation. But his new rules did not possess the force of law as they were not passed into a Regulation in a legal manner, which meant that in practice there were no legal restrictions on the press. The Marquess of Hastings was soon hailed in Calcutta as a liberator of the press. In the same year, the first journals in an Indian language— Bengali—were launched, the precursors of several Indian-language journals in other parts of India. There is a dispute about which was published first, the Bengal Gejeti edited by Harachandra Roy with the assistance of Gangakishore Bhattacharya, or Samachar Darpan, launched by the Baptist missionaries at Serampore—both were launched in May 1818 (some scholars claim that Bangal Gejeti was launched in 1816). The missionaries had earlier launched the monthly Digdarsan in April 1818, but due to the missionary context, nationalist historians credit Bangal Gejeti as the first journal in an Indian language, but it did not last for more than a year (none of its issues are known to exist). The year 1818 also saw the launch of Buckingham’s Calcutta Journal, on 2 October, a biweekly of eight quarto pages, which was to come into frequent conflict with EIC and also encourage the growth of the indigenous press by often publishing extracts from the Indian-language journals and commenting favourably on their growth. A Whig, Buckingham propagated liberal ideas and views through his journal that almost reached the record daily circulation figure of 1000 copies. As the editor, he wrote, he conceived his duty to be “to admonish Governors of their duties, to warn them furiously of their faults, and to tell disagreeable truths” (Barns 1940, 95). Setting himself up as a champion of free press, Buckingham saw a free press as an important check against misgovernment, especially in Bengal, where there was no legislature to curb executive authority.

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, a “multifarious culture of the print medium” had come into existence in India:

It was the first fully formed print culture to appear outside Europe and North America and it was distinguished by its size, productivity, and multilingual and multinational constitution, as well as its large array of Asian languages and its inclusion of numerous non-Western investors and producers among its participants. (Dharwadker 1997, 112)

Print journalism had found a fertile soil in colonial Calcutta, but it also generated near-panic among colonial officials about its potential subversive effect on the army. Expressing “intense anxiety and alarm”, Chief Secretary John Adam (1822) wrote in a lengthy minute on the press: “That the seeds of infinite mischief have already been sown is my firm belief”. When the Marquess of Hastings sailed for England on 9 January 1823, he was temporarily succeeded as governor-general by John Adam, whose first act was to deport Buckingham to England, which led to the closure of Calcutta Journal. Secondly, Adam promulgated a rigorous Press Ordinance on 14 March 1823, which made it mandatory for editors and publishers to secure licences for their journals. To secure the licences, they had to submit an affidavit to the chief secretary under oath. For any offence of discussing any of the subjects prohibited by law, the editor or publisher was liable to lose the licence.

The following sections set out the Indian response to the Press Ordinance, mainly directed by Rammohun Roy (1772–1833), who is less known for his contribution to Indian journalism than for his reformist initiatives in the realm of religion, education and social awareness (in particular, for his campaign to abolish sati or widow burning). Considered in hagiographic and nationalistic accounts as the founder of modern India, most of his reformist initiatives were conducted through the technology of print in the form of pamphlets, translations, tracts and journals. He was closely associated with at least five journals: Bengal Gejeti (Bengali, 1818), The Brahmunical Magazine (English–Bengali, 1821), Sambad Kaumidi (Bengali, 1821), Mirat-ul-Akhbar (Persian, 1822) and Bengal Herald (English, 1829). Roy—easily one of the foremost examples of an “argumentative Indian” (Sen 2005)— often engaged in lengthy debates with Baptist missionaries and used his polemical skills to oppose the Press Ordinance.

Press Ordinance and Two Memorials

Before the Press Ordinance was issued on 14 March 1823, officials in the governor-general’s administration were clamouring for legal restrictions on what they saw as “excesses” of the press. In a lengthy minute dated 14 August 1822, John Adam (1822) wrote: “My objection is to the claim of that class of persons to exercise in this country, the privileges they are allowed to assume at home, of sitting in judgement on the acts of Government, and bringing public measures and the conduct of public men, as well as the concerns of private individuals, before the bar of what they miscall public opinion”. Another senior official, W. B. Bayley, wrote on 10 October 1822: “Feeling as I do that the Native Press may be converted into an engine of the most serious mischief, I shall … state the grounds on which I consider it essential that the Government should be vested with legal power to control the excesses of the Native as well as the European Press”.

The Marquess of Hastings, who had tolerated much criticism from Buckingham and had refrained from taking action, was faced with an increasingly belligerent group of officials, who wanted more powers to clamp down on the press. The Marquess of Hastings finally wrote to London in October 1822 for more such powers, but before any progress could be made on the issue, he returned to England on 9 January 1823. Adam, the senior-most official at the time, took over as the acting governor-general, and as stated above, his first two acts in office were deporting Buckingham to London, and issuing the rigorous Press Ordinance. Under the laws of the time, every new executive measure had to be submitted to the Supreme Court for registration before it could come into force. Adam’s Press Ordinance was submitted to the court on 15 March 1823, and two days later, Rammohun Roy and four others submitted a memorial, asking the court to hear objections against it. Besides Roy, it was signed by three Tagores (Chunder Coomar, Dwarkanath, Prosunno Coomar), Hurchunder Ghosh and Gowree Churn Bonnergee.

The memorial discussed in a logical manner the general principles on which the claim of freedom of the press was based in all modern countries, and recalled the contribution Indians had made to the growth of British rule. It created a sensation at the time and came to be described as the “Aeropagitica of Indian history” (Collet 1988, 180, italics in original). The memorial pointed out the aversion of Hindus to undertaking an oath because of “invincible prejudice against making a voluntary affidavit, or undergoing the solemnities of an oath”. Using the rhetorical strategy of professing loyalty and attachment of the Indians to British rule, the memorialists wrote that they were “extremely sorry” to note that the new restrictions would put a “complete stop” to the diffusion of knowledge, promoting social progress, and keeping government informed about public opinion. It pointed out that the natives “cannot be charged with having ever abused” freedom of the press in the past, and went on to audaciously state:

Your memorialists are persuaded that the British government is not disposed to adopt the politician’s maxim so often acted upon by Asiatic Princes, that the more a people are kept in darkness, their Rulers will derive the greater advantages from them; since, by reference to History, it is found that this was but a short-sighted policy which did not ultimately answer the purpose of its authors. On the contrary, it rather proved disadvantageous to them; for we find that as often as an ignorant people, when an opportunity offered, have revolted against their Rulers, all sorts of barbarous excesses and cruelties have been the consequence … Every good Ruler, who is convinced of the imperfection of human nature, and reverences the Eternal Governor of the world, must be conscious of the great liability to error in managing the affairs of a vast empire; and therefore he will be anxious to afford every individual the readiest means of bringing to his notice whatever may require his interference. To secure this important aspect, the unrestrained Liberty of publication, is the only effectual means that can be employed. And should it ever be abused, the established Law of the Land is very properly armed with efficient powers to punish those who may be found guilty. (Collet 1988, 392–393)

The memorial was read in court, but the judge, Francis Macnaghten, dismissed it, but admitted that before the Press Ordinance was entered or its merits argued in court, he had pledged to the government that he would sanction it. The ordinance was registered in the court on 4 April 1823. The memorial was much appreciated but failed to prevent the ordinance from becoming law. The only other recourse Roy and his group had was to appeal to the King-in-Council in London. Roy then drafted another memorial, more sophisticated in its logic and arguments, and sent copies to Lord Canning (then Foreign Secretary and Leader in the House of Commons) and to the EIC’s Board of Control, in London. Over 55 numbered and lengthy paragraphs, Roy repeated the opposition to the Press Ordinance. Describing the second memorial, Collet (1988, 183) wrote: “Its stately periods and not less stately thought recall the eloquence of the great orators of a century ago. In a language and style for ever associated with the glorious vindication of liberty, it invokes against the arbitrary exercise of British power the principles and traditions which are distinctive of British history”. Continuing the rhetorical strategy of mixing fulsome praise with caution, warning and criticism, the second memorial recalled world history and put it to the King:

Men in power hostile to the Liberty of the Press, which is a disagreeable check upon their conduct, when unable to discover any real evil arising from its existence, have attempted to make the world imagine, that it might, in some possible contingency, afford the means of combination against the Government, but not to mention that extraordinary emergencies would warrant measures which in ordinary times are totally unjustifiable, your Majesty is well aware, that a Free Press has never yet caused a revolution in any part of the world because, while men can easily represent the grievances arising from the conduct of the local authorities to the supreme Government, and thus get them redressed, the grounds of discontent that excite revolution are removed; whereas, where no freedom of the Press existed, and grievances consequently remained unrepresented and unredressed, innumerable revolutions have taken place in all parts of the globe, or if prevented by the armed force of the Government, the people continued ready for insurrection. (Collet 1988, 407)

In parts of the memorial, Roy lectured to the King in polite language on the importance of freedom of the press and its relevance to the continuation of British rule in India. He also reproduced the eight restrictions under the Press Ordinance, and recalled that Friend of India, a publication by the Baptist missionaries from Serampore, had appreciated the role of the native press and had stated in a recent issue: “Nor has this liberty been abused by them [the native press] in the least degree”. Roy then eloquently pointed out that the Ordinance, issued after Buckingham’s deportation to England, gave the impression that the Indian press was being punished for the actions of one individual, and stated: “Yet notwithstanding what the local authorities of this country have done, your faithful subjects feel confident, that your Majesty will not suffer it to be believed throughout your Indian territories, that it is British justice to punish millions for the fault imputed to one individual”. A key aspect of the memorial was Roy’s recall of Mughal history and the akhbarat (newsletters) system instituted during their rule. In two paragraphs (43 and 50), the memorial regretted the new press restrictions, made veiled criticism of British rule and stated:

Your Majesty is aware, that under their former Muhammadan Rulers, the natives of this country enjoyed every political privilege in common with Mussulmans, being eligible to the highest offices in the state, entrusted with the command of armies and the government of provinces and often chosen as advisers to their Prince, without disqualification or degrading distinction on account of their religion or the place of their birth … Notwithstanding the despotic power of the Mogul Princes who formerly ruled over this country, and that their conduct was often cruel and arbitrary, yet the wise and virtuous among them, always employed two intelligencers at the residence of their Nawabs or Lord Lieutenants, Akhbar-navees, or news-writer who published an account of whatever happened, and a Khoofea-navees, or confidential correspondent who sent a private and particular account of every occurrence worthy of notice; and although these Lord Lieutenants were often particular friends of near relations to the Prince, he did not trust entirely to themselves for a faithful and impartial report of their administration, and degraded them when they appeared to deserve it, either for their own faults or for their negligence in not checking the delinquencies of their subordinate officers; which shews that even the Mogul Princes, although their form of Government admitted of nothing better, were convinced, that in a country so rich and so replete with temptations, a restraint of some kind was absolutely necessary, to prevent the abuses that are so liable to flow from the possession of power. (Collet 1988, 413, 416–417)

The memorials were an example of the confluence of themes of history, earlier Indian administrations (notably Mughal) and modern ideas, notably the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham, with whom Roy had been in touch. Roy cited the intelligence network of the Mughal rules to emphasise the use of various ways of communication to the rulers. At a time of weak international communication, Roy demonstrated remarkable understanding of world politics, and referred to examples to support his opposition to imposing restrictions on the press. The memorials, or public petitions, were addressed to British authorities, but drew on earlier traditions, akhbarat, of alerting the ruler to the moral infractions of his servants. In the process, Roy and his co-petitioners reframed the form and substance of the memorials but not its essential purpose that was often used in the past. This confluence of the past and the then colonial present was best exemplified by Roy, who, as Bayly (2004, 293) put it, “made in two decades an astonishing leap from the intellectual status of a late-Mughal state intellectual to that of the first Indian liberal … he independently broached themes that were being simultaneously developed in Europe by Garibaldi and Saint-Simon”.

The memorials failed to overturn the Press Ordinance; they were couched in courteous language of the time, but included covert and not-so-covert warnings that the future of British rule in India was in danger if the new rulers did not allow Indians many of the privileges available to people in England. The memorials were seen as a daring act by Roy and his group at a time when expanding colonial rule was marked by arbitrary official decisions, racism, punishment, imprisonment and the rapacious extraction of resources. But Roy took another daring step at the time: closing his Persian journal, and setting down the reasons for doing so in its last edition.

Closure of Mirat-ul-Akhbar

In his minute of 10 October 1822, Bayley devoted much attention to the contents of Roy’s Mirat-ul-Akhbar (Mirror of News) to justify demanding more powers to curb the press. Noting Roy’s “known disposition for theological controversy”, Bayley recalled an article in the journal on the death of Thomas Middleton, bishop of Calcutta. He wrote: “After some laudatory remarks on his learning and dignity the article concludes by stating that the Bishop having been now relieved from the cares and anxieties of this world, had ‘tumbled on the shoulders of the mercy of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost’. The expression coming from a known impugner of the doctrine of the Trinity, could only be considered as ironical, and was noticed … as objectionable and offensive”. In subsequent issues, Roy went on to defend the article in his style described by Bayley as the “polemical disposition of the editor”. On 4 April 1823, the day the Press Ordinance was registered in the Supreme Court and became law, Roy closed Mirat-ul-Akhbar in protest. In the final issue, he set out the reasons for doing so:

Under these circumstances, I, the least of all the human race, in consideration of several difficulties, have, with much regret and reluctance, relinquished the publication of this Paper (Mirat-ool-Ukhbar). The difficulties are these:

First—Although it is very easy for those European Gentlemen, who have the honour to be acquainted with the Chief Secretary to Government, to obtain a License according to the prescribed form; yet to a humble individual like myself, it is very hard to make his way through the porters and attendants of a great Personage; or to enter the doors of the Police Court, crowded with people of all classes, for the purpose of obtaining what is in fact, already [? Unnecessary] in my own opinion. As it is written—

Abrooe kih ba-sad khoon i jigar dast dihad
Ba-oomed-I karam-e, kha’jah, ba-darban ma-farosh
(The respect which is purchased with a hundred drops of heart’s blood
Do not thou, in the hope of a favour commit to the mercy of a porter).

Secondly—To make Affidavit in an open court, in presence of respectable Magistrates, is looked upon as very mean and censurable by those who watch the conduct of their neighbours. Besides, the publication of a newspaper is not incumbent upon every person, so that he must resort to the evasion of establishing fictitious Proprietors, which is contrary to Law, and repugnant to Conscience.

Thirdly—After incurring the disrepute of solicitation and suffering the dishonour of making Affidavit, the constant apprehension of the License being recalled by Government which would disgrace the person in the eyes of the world, must create such anxiety as entirely to destroy his peace of mind, because a man, by nature liable to err, in telling the real truth cannot help sometimes making use of words and selecting phrases that might be unpleasant to Government. I, however, here prefer silence to speaking out:

Guda-e goshah nashenee to Khafiza makharosh
Roo mooz maslabat-i khesh khoosrowan danand
(Thou O Hafiz, art a poor retired man, be silent,
Princes know the secrets of their own Policy).

I now entreat those kind and liberal gentlemen of Persia and Hindoostan, who have honoured the Mirat-ool-Ukhbar with their patronage, that in consideration of the reasons above stated, they will excuse the non-fulfilment of my promise to make them acquainted with passing events.

Once again, the confluence of themes of religion, language, personal honour rooted in the past and the colonial present are evident in Roy’s last note to his readers. He invoked Persian couplets to make courteous attacks on the British and the restrictions imposed in the Press Ordinance. He pointed out the differential access Indians and the British had to officials of the Company government, and recalled the embarrassment rooted in religion and tradition faced by Indians to the act of taking an oath. Taken together, even though the two memorials and closing Roy’s journal were couched in courteous terms and some rhetoric, they were essentially an act of political defiance, which was delivered in the language and discourse of the new rulers. The opposition to the Press Ordinance won new converts among the British (such as Lieutenant Colonel Leicester Stanhope), and provided a template for future political opposition on other issues, such as the controversial Jury Act, Indian property and labour, the rights of Britons in India, taxes, education and making English the medium of instruction.

Conclusion

Roy closing his journal in protest and the two memorials did not succeed in changing policy, but their significance lies in the ways in which the colonial authorities dealt with the press subsequently. The memorials were much appreciated in England, where Buckingham had continued his campaign in print against the EIC and its exercise of arbitrary powers in India. Lord Amhurst, who took over from John Adam as the governor-general of India in 1823 (he was in office until 1828) did not implement the Press Ordinance rigorously, neither did his successor, Lord Bentinck. The memorials, closure of Roy’s journal and Buckingham’s activities in London had generated much publicity on the issue of freedom of the press in colonial India, with governors-general choosing to avoid taking major action against the fast growing press. In 1835, it was another acting governor-general, Charles Metcalfe, who, aided by Macaulay, removed Adam’s licensing and other restrictions on the press through Act No. XI. By then, the idea of a free press had become a key element of a growing public sphere in Calcutta and elsewhere in colonial India. Metcalfe, who was later penalised by EIC authorities in London for removing the press restrictions, was hailed as a liberator of press and immortalised in Metcalfe Hall, a major landmark in Calcutta, which was built with public subscription in the style of imposing empire architecture in his honour. The press had become a key site of discussion and protest as the Company government introduced new laws and initiatives to govern India. The largely permissive situation for the press continued until the 1857 rebellion, by when opinions and positions had hardened on both sides, as Indian journals openly criticised the British and the EIC imposed new restrictions on the press.

But the press had grown all over colonial India, despite new repressive measures. As Majumdar (1965, 233) put it, “[The] daring act of Rammohan and his five associates marks the beginning of a new type of political activity which was destined to be the special characteristic of India for nearly a century”. The significance of Roy’s two memorials was highlighted soon after the Round Table Conference was held in London in 1930–1931 to discuss India’s future: “It might never have come about had the great Ram Mohan Roy not taken the lead, and three Tagores, a Ghose, and a Banerji, not joined him in the starting the process that led to it” (O’ Malley 1941, 198). This forgotten chapter of protest focused on the idea of a free press provides a key insight into the continuation of politics as the dominant theme in Indian journalism today. Politics and political protest occupied the centre-stage in early Indian journalism, and continued during the long freedom struggle, which further entrenched politics as the dominant theme, which continued after independence, up to the present. The form, structure and discourse of politics in Indian journalism has changed, reflecting corresponding changes in political structures and themes, but the symbiotic link between journalism and politics in India has never been in question.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

NOTE

1. British/Colonial spellings have been used for people and places in the paper.

REFERENCES

Adam, John. 1822. Minute No. 3, British Library, Bengal Public Consultations, P/10/55.
Barns, Margarita. 1940. The Indian Press: A History of the Growth of Public Opinion in India. London: Allan & Unwin.
Bayley, W. B. 1822. Minute No. 8, British Library Bengal Public Consultations, P/10/55.
Bayly, C. A. 2004. The Birth of the Modern World: 1780–1914. Oxford: Blackwell.
Collet, Sophia D. 1988. The Life and Letters of Raja Rammohun Roy. Calcutta: Sadharan Brahmo Samaj.
Dharwadker, Vinay. 1997. “Print Culture and Literary Markets in Colonial India.” In Language Machines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production, edited by Jeffrey Masten, Peter Stallybrass, and Nancy J. Vickers, 108–133. London: Routledge.
Gaonkar, Dilip P. 1999. “On Alternative Modernities.” Public Culture 11 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1215/ 08992363-11-1-1.
Majumdar, R. C. 1965. British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance. Part II. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
Marshall, P. J. 2000. “The White Town of Calcutta under the Rule of the East India Company.” Modern Asian Studies 34 (2): 307–331. doi:10.1017/S0026749X00003346.
Mills, J. S. 1924. The Press and Communications of the Empire’. London: W. Collins Sons.
O’Malley, L. S. S. 1941. Modern India and the West: A Study of the Interaction of Their Civilisations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raichaudhuri, Tapan. 1988. Europe Reconsidered: Perceptions of the West in Nineteenth Century Bengal. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sen, Amartya. 2005. The Argumentative Indian. London: Allen Lane.
Shaw, Graham. 1981. Printing in Calcutta to 1800. London: The Bibliographical Society.
Sonwalkar, Prasun. 2002. “Murdochization of the Indian Press: From By-line to Bottom-line.” Media Culture & Society 24 (6): 821–834. doi:10.1177/016344370202400605.
Sonwalkar, Prasun. 2014. “Narendra Modi’s Victory Compared to ‘1979 Thatcher Moment’ in UK.” Hindustan Times, June 2.

[admin]

John Zachariah Kiernander
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/25/21



John Zachariah Kiernander (1711–1799), also known as Johann Zacharias Kiernander, was a Swedish Lutheran missionary in India.[1]


Beth-Tephillah Church founded 1770 by John Zachariah Kiernander, later the Old Mission Church, Calcutta

He was the first Protestant Missionary to establish a base in Bengal. He built the Old Mission Church in Calcutta and founded one of the first printing presses in Calcutta. In 1781, he accused James Augustus Hicky, the editor and publisher of Hicky's Bengal Gazette of libel. He won the trial. He is the author of The Trial and Conviction of James Augustus Hicky.

Notes

1. Edward Cave; John Nichols (1824). The Gentleman's Magazine, and Historical Chronicle. Edw. Cave. pp. 105–10.

**************************

Johann Zacharias Kiernander
by Paul Tyson
onewaytheonlykway.com
Accessed: 3/25/21

Johann Zacharias Kiernander was born in Sweden in the year 1710. Kiernander was the first missionary to establish a base in Bengal even before William Carey and Henry Martin arrived. He studied theology at Hale University and served as a teacher in Latin.

In 1739 he received the call of God to serve in India and reached Tharagambadi. Kiernander worked as a Tranquebar missionary in Cuddalore in Tamilnadu. But, after the French had taken over this city in 1758, Kiernander had to leave the city and move to Calcutta.

He reached Calcutta in 1759 and accomplished a great work for God in that place.

Ministry in India

His keen interest in expounding the Bible, his enthusiasm, and his straight forwardness attracted many people there. many were saved and baptized. Sunday services were held in a rented room and he preached to the English and local people in their own languages respectively. Hundreds of non-Christians were saved through him.

His marriage earned him a good fortune. He used this as an opportunity to help the Christian people who were living in poverty and built several schools. He built the Old Mission Church in Calcutta and the living quarters for missionaries.

He is also credited for founding one of the first printing presses in Calcutta. Meanwhile, he lost his wife to Cholera but yet continued to labor in God’s vineyard amidst many hurdles. He stayed true to his call and finished his race on this earth fulfilling God’s divine purpose.

[admin]

John Adam (administrator)
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/26/21

-- THE INDIAN PRESS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE HON. JOHN ADAM, from A Sketch of the History of the Indian Press, During the Last Ten Years: With a Biographical Account of Mr. James Silk Buckingham, by Sandford Arnot

John Adam (4 May 1779 – 4 June 1825) was a British administrator in India, serving as the acting Governor-General of the British East India Company in 1823.

Life


The memorial to John Adam in the Adam mausoleum, Greyfriars kirkyard

The eldest son of William Adam of Blair Adam, he was born on 4 May 1779, and was educated at Charterhouse School. He received a writership on the Bengal establishment in 1794; and, after a year at Edinburgh University, landed at Calcutta in India in February 1796[1] to work for the East India Company.[2][3]

Most of Adam's career was spent in the secretariat.[3] He was private as well as political secretary to the Marquess of Hastings, whom he accompanied in the field during the Third Anglo-Maratha War. In 1817 he was nominated by the court of directors a member of council.[1] In 1819 he became a member of the Supreme Council of India.[3]

As senior member of council, Adam became Acting Governor General of India on Lord Hastings's departure in January 1823.[3] His rule lasted for seven months, until the arrival of Lord Amherst in August of the same year. It saw the suppression of the freedom of the English press in India. James Silk Buckingham had established the Calcutta Journal, which published severe comments on the government. Adam cancelled Buckingham's license for residence in India, and passed regulations restricting newspaper criticism. Buckingham appealed to the court of proprietors at home, to the House of Commons, and to the Privy Council; but the action of Adam was upheld by each of these three bodies. Another unpopular act of Adam's governor-generalship was to withdraw official support from the banking firm of Palmer, who had acquired great influence with the Nizam of Hyderabad.[1]

Adam also appropriated public money for the encouragement of Indian education. His health broke down and he left his job and he left in March 1825. After a voyage to Bombay, and a visit to Almorah in the lower Himalayas, he embarked on a ship to return him to his parents in Britain. He died off the coast of Madagascar on 4 June 1825.[1] He was buried at sea but he is memorialised within the family tomb in Greyfriars Kirkyard in Edinburgh.[2][3] A tomb monument to Adam was also erected in 1827 in Cathedral of Calcutta, now known as St. John's Church.[3]

The John Adam

The John Adam was an Indian-built ship of about 580 tons burthen, appointed in 1821 for the accommodation of the mission of John Crawfurd to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China.[4]

References

1. Cotton, James Sutherland (1885). "Adam, John" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. 1. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
2. Monuments and monumental inscriptions in Scotland: The Grampian Society, 1871
3. Ayers, Sydney (July 2019). "An English Country House in Calcutta: mapping networks between Government House, the statesman John Adam, and the architect Robert Adam". ABE Journal. 14–15.
4. Crawfurd, John (August 2006) [First published 1830]. "I". Journal of an Embassy from the Governor-general of India to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China. Volume 1 (2nd ed.). London: H. Colburn and R. Bentley. OCLC 03452414. Retrieved February 2, 2012.
• Prior, Katherine (September 2004). "Adam, John (1779–1825), administrator in India". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 24 July 2009. The first edition of this text is available at Wikisource: Cotton, James Sutherland (1885). "Adam, John" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. 1. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
• Ayers, Sydney (July 2019). "An English Country House in Calcutta: mapping networks between Government House, the statesman John Adam, and the architect Robert Adam." ABE Journal.

Notes

Attribution

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Cotton, James Sutherland (1885). "Adam, John". In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. 1. London: Smith, Elder & Co.

************************

John Adam, 1885-1900
by Dictionary of National Biography
1885-1900, Volume 1
by James Sutherland Cotton

ADAM, JOHN (1779–1825), Anglo-Indian statesman, was eldest son of William Adam [see Adam, William, 1751–1839]. He was born on 4 May 1779; was educated at the Charterhouse; received a writership on the Bengal establishment in 1794; and, after a year at Edinburgh University, landed at Calcutta in 1796. The greater part of his career was spent in the secretariat. He was private as well as political secretary to the Marquis of Hastings, whom he accompanied in the field during the Pindari or third Mahratta war. In 1817 he was nominated by the court of directors member of council; and as senior member of council he became acting governor-general of India on Lord Hastings's departure in January 1823. His rule lasted for seven months, until the arrival of Lord Amherst in August of the same year. It is memorable in history chiefly for one incident — the suppression of the freedom of the English press in India. James Silk Buckingham, afterwards M.P. and founder of the ‘Athenæum,’ had established the ‘Calcutta Journal,’ which published severe comments upon the government. Adam cancelled Buckingham's license, without which no European could then reside in India, and passed regulations restricting newspaper criticism. Buckingham appealed to the court of proprietors at home, to the House of Commons, and to the Privy Council; but the action of Adam was sustained by each of these three bodies. Another unpopular act of Adam's governor-generalship was to withdraw official support from the banking firm of Palmer, who had acquired a preponderant influence with the Nizam of the Deccan. Adam also deserves credit for being the first Indian ruler to appropriate a grant of public money for the encouragement of native education. Adam's health had now broken down. After in vain seeking relief by a voyage to Bombay, and by a visit to Almorah in the lower Himalayas, he was ordered home to England. He died off Madagascar on 4 June 1825. Though some of his public acts involved him in unpopularity, his personal character had won him almost universal goodwill. His portrait was painted by G. Chinnery for the Calcutta Town Hall.

[A full account of John Adam is given in the memoir in the Asiatic Journal for November 1825. There is also in the library of the India Office, bound up in a volume of tracts, A Short Notice of the Official Career and Private Character of the late J. Adam, Esq. (Calcutta: privately printed, 1825). This is a pamphlet of 16 pages, written by C. Lushington, evidently an intimate friend; but it is sadly deficient in facts, the Buckingham incident being not even referred to.]

[admin]

William Duane (journalist)
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/27/21


William Duane
Born: 1760, Champlain, New York, US
Died: 1835, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Occupation: journalist

William Duane (1760–1835) was an American journalist.[1]

Born in Newfoundland,[2] he moved to Calcutta in 1788, and founded the Bengal Journal in 1791. Later that year, after the Governor-General of India John Shore, 1st Baron Teignmouth shut down the Bengal Journal for a libel against the French royalist government in exile in Calcutta, Duane founded his second newspaper, The World. He was deported for a libel in this newspaper in 1794 and emigrated to the United States.[3][4][5]

Before he died of yellow fever on September 8, 1798,[6][7] Benjamin Franklin Bache hired Duane to work on the Aurora newspaper and printing business.[6] Duane married fellow journalist Margaret Hartman Markoe Bache at the Christ Church in Philadelphia on June 28, 1800. They lived at 316 Market Street some time after their union. After 25 years of marriage, Bache told Thomas Jefferson in 1824 that she had the qualities of "a Roman matron".[6]

According to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson attributed his presidential victory to this paper.[1] Jefferson named Duane a lieutenant colonel, and by the War of 1812 he was an adjutant general. He died in Philadelphia in 1835[1] and was interred at Laurel Hill Cemetery.[8]


William Duane tombstone in Laurel Hill Cemetery

William John Duane was his son.

References

1. Historical Society of Pennsylvania
2. [1]
3. Phillips, Kim T., "William Duane, Philadelphia's Democratic Republicans, and Origins of Modern Politics," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 101 (1977), pp. 365–87.
4. Pasley, Jeffery L., "The Tyranny of Printers": Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic, Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 2001, pp. 176–95.
5. Pasley, Jeffrey L (1 January 2001). ""The tyranny of printers": newspaper politics in the early American republic". University Press of Virginia. Retrieved 9 September 2016 – via Open WorldCat.
6. "Margaret Hartman Markoe". Independence National Historical Park. U.S. National Park Service. December 1, 2020. Retrieved March 7, 2021.
7. Weisberger, Bernard A. (2000). America Afire: Jefferson, Adams, and the Revolutionary Election of 1800. William Morrow. p. 218.
8. Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C