Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T20:13:01.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Independence of Brazil and the Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade: Anglo-Brazilian Relations, 1822–1826*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Leslie Bethell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For 300 years, from the beginning of the sixteenth to the beginning of the nineteenth century, the transatlantic slave trade—the forced migration of Africans to work as slaves on the plantations and in the mines of British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch colonies in North and South America and the Caribbean—was carried on legally, and on an everincreasing scale, by the merchants of most Western European countries and their colonial counterparts, aided and abetted by African middlemen. On. 25 March 1807, however, after a lengthy struggle, inside and outside Parliament, it was declared illegal for British subjects (and at this point during the Napoleonic Wars at least half the trade was in British hands) to trade in slaves after 1 May 1808. During the previous twenty years there had been a marked growth of intellectual and moral revulsion against the trade (and, in particular, the horrors of the ‘middle passage’) and changing economic conditions, which to some extent reduced the importance to the British economy of the West Indian colonies for whom the trade was a major lifeline and created new interest groups unconnected with and even hostile to them, facilitated its abolition.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 1969 , pp. 115 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the slave trade in Portuguese Africa, see, for example, Duffy, James, Portuguese Africa (Harvard Univ. Press, 1959), pp. 137, 142, 146Google Scholar; Duffy, James, A Question of Slavery. Labour Policies in Portuguese Africa and the British Protest, 1810–1920 (Oxford, 1967), pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Hammond, R. J., Portugal and Africa, 1815–1910 (Stanford Univ. Press, 1966), pp. 37–8, 42, 55–6, 68–9.Google Scholar

2 The most thorough examination of the available evidence on the size, distribution and racial composition of the Brazilian population at the end of the colonial period is Alden, Dauril, ‘The Population of Brazil in the late eighteenth century; a preliminary study’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 43 (1963), 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 For the structure of the Brazilian economy and Brazilian society at the end of the colonial period, see, for example, Júnior, Caio Prado, Formaçāo do Brasil Contemporâneo (5th ed., São Paulo, 1957): Eng. trans.Google Scholar, The Colonial Background of Modern Brasil (Univ. of California Press, 1967), passimGoogle Scholar; de Holanda, Sérgio Buarque (ed.), História Geral da Civilização Brasileira. Tomo 1, vol. 11Google Scholar, A Época Colonial. Administraçāo, Economia, Sociedade (São Paulo, 1960)Google Scholar, passim; Furtado, Celso, Formaçāo Economica do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, 1959): Eng. trans.Google Scholar, The Economic Growth of Brazil (Univ. of California Press, 1963), pp. 79–106.Google Scholar Neither the extent nor the harshness of negro slavery in Brazil can, in my view, be disputed. I have deliberately avoided here the controversial question of whether Brazilian slavery was nevertheless milder than slavery elsewhere in the Americas.

4 See Goulart, Mauricio, Escravidão Africana no Brasil: das origins à extinção do tráfico (Sāo Paulo, 1950), pp. 265–70.Google Scholar During the colonial period as a whole it is probable that as many as three million slaves were imported into Brazil (Goulart, in Buarque de Holanda, op. cit., p. 191).Google Scholar

5 Sec Boxer, C. R., Race Relations in the Portuguese Colonial Empire, 1415–1825 (Oxford, 1963), pp. 101–21Google Scholar; ‘Negro Slavery in Brazil: a Portuguese pamphlet of 1764’, Race, 5 (1964), 38–47.Google Scholar

6 de Azeredo Coutinho, J. J. da Cunha, Análise sôbre a Justiça do comércio do resgate dos escravos da Costa da Africa (2nd ed., Lisbon, 1808)Google Scholar; Concordância das Lets de Portugal e das Bulas Pontificias, das quais umas permitem a cscravidão dos Prêtos da Africa e outras proîbem a escravidão dos Indios do Brasil (Lisbon, 1808).Google Scholar See also, Siqueira, Sonia Aparecida, ‘A escravidão negra no pensamento do bispo Azeredo Coutinho. Contribuição ao estudo da mentalidade do último Inquisidor’, Revista da História (São Paulo), 56 (1963), 349–65; 57 (1964), 141–76.Google Scholar

7 For the transfer of the Portuguese court from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro and its consequences for Anglo-Portuguese relations, see Manchester's, Alan K. now classic British Preeminence in Brazil: its rise and decline (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1933), pp. 54–68Google Scholar, and a more recent work, de Freitas, Caio, George Canning e o Brasil (2 vols., Rio de Janeiro, 1958), 1, 32–96.Google Scholar

8 Treaty of 19 Feb. 1810, article X, British and Foreign State Papers (hereafter cited as B.F.S.P.), 1, 555–7.

9 Treaty of 22 Jan. 1815, B.F.S.P., 11, 348–55. Also printed in Pinto, Antônio Pereira, Apontamentos. para o Direito Internacional, ou Collecção completa dos Tratados celebrados pelo Brasil com differentes Nações Estrangeiros (4 vols., Rio de Janeiro, 1864–1869), 1, 124–37.Google Scholar

10 Treaty of 28 July 1817, B.F.S.P., iv, 85–116; Pinto, Pereira, op. cit., 1, 155–88.Google Scholar On the right of search question and the establishment of courts of mixed commission for the adjudication of captured slave ships, see my article ‘The Mixed Commissions for the Suppression of the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of African History, 7 (1966), 80–1.Google Scholar

11 The French consul Maler reported that Dom João always discussed the slave trade question com calor. See de Oliveira Lima, Manuel, Dom João VI no Brasil, 1808–21 (2nd ed., 3 vols., Rio de Janeiro, 1945), ii, 438.Google Scholar

12 For the independence of Brazil, see Armitage, John, The History of Brazil from the Period of the Arrival of the Braganza Family in 1808 to the Abdication of Dom Pedro the First in 1831 (2 vols., London, 1836)Google Scholar; Adolfo de Varnhagen, Francisco, ‘História da independência do Brasil’, Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro, 79 (1916), 25–594Google Scholar; de Oliveira Lima, Manuel, O Movimento da Independência, 1821–2 (São Paulo, 1922)Google Scholar; Monteiro, Tobias do Rego, História do Império: a elaboração da independência (Rio de Janeiro, 1927)Google Scholar; de Holanda, Sérgio Buarque (ed.), História Geral da Civilização Brasileira. Tomo II, vol. 1Google Scholar, O Brasil Monárquico. O Processo de Emancipação (São Paulo, 1962).Google Scholar

13 Canning, to Ward, (chargé; in Lisbon), no. 8, 18 10 1822Google Scholar, printed in Webster, C. K. (ed.), Britain and the Independence of Latin America, 1812–1830. Select Documents from the Foreign Office Archives (2 vols., London, 1938), 11, 234–5Google Scholar; Canning, to Wellington, (at the Congress of Verona), 15 10 1822Google Scholar, printed in Despatches, Correspondence and Memoranda of the Duke of Wellington edited by his son (8 vols., London, 1867–1880), 1, 358Google Scholar; Canning, to Wilberforce, , 19 10, 24 10 1822Google Scholar, Canning Papers (Leeds City Library), box 80a; Canning to Bathurst, Secretary for War and Colonies, 6 Dec. 1822, Canning Papers, 106.

14 Thornton (minister in Lisbon) to Canning, 8 March 1824, Foreign Office Archives (Public Record Office, London), hereafter cited as F.O., 63 (Portugal)/285. See also Bandinel, James, Some account of the trade in slaves from Africa—especially with reference to the efforts of the British government for its extinction. A memoir to Lord Aberdeen (London, 1842), pp. 157–8.Google Scholar This work by the Superintendent of the Slave Trade Department of the Foreign Office from 1819 to 1845 is essentially an abstract of Foreign Office slave trade papers.

15 Canning, to Wellington, , 15 10 1822Google Scholar, two separate despatches printed in Wellington's Despatches, op. cit., 1, 355, 358.Google Scholar

16 For the policies of Castlereagh and Canning towards Latin American independence in general, see Webster, , op. cit., intro.Google Scholar

17 Canning, to Wellington, , no. 4, 27 09 1822Google Scholar, printed in Webster, , op. cit., 11, 74Google Scholar, and quoted in King, J. F., ‘The Latin American Republics and the Suppression of the Slave Trade’, H.A.H.R., 24 (1944), 391.Google Scholar

18 Canning, to Wellington, , 30 09 1822Google Scholar, printed in Wellington's Despatches, op. cit., 1, 329.Google Scholar

19 Canning, to Wilberforce, , 24 10 1822Google Scholar, printed in Correspondence of William Wilberforce, ed. , R. I. and Wilberforce, S. (2 vols., London, 1840), 11, 466Google Scholar; Wilberforce, to Canning, , 25 10 1822Google Scholar, Canning Papers, 80a; Canning, to Wilberforce, , 31 10 1822Google Scholar, printed in Wellington's Despatches, op. cit., 1, 474.Google Scholar

20 Instructions, 12 Aug. 1822, printed in Archivo Diplomático da Independência (6 vols., Rio de Janeiro, 1922–1925)Google Scholar, hereafter cited as A.D.I., 1, 9. See de Freitas, Caio, op. cit., 1, 338–40, 344–6.Google Scholar

21 Brant, to Bonifácio, José, 6 05 1822Google Scholar, printed in Publicações do Archivo Publico Nacional, 7 (1907), 245–6.Google Scholar

22 Brant, to Bonifácio, José, 12 11 1822Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 198–9; also Hipólito José da Costa to José Bonifácio, no. 3, 12 Nov. 1822, A.D.I., 1, 203–5.Google Scholar

23 Brant, to Canning, , 9 11Google Scholar, enclosed in Brant, to Bonifácio, José, 12 11 1822Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 200–3.Google Scholar

24 Brant, to Bonifácio, José, 16 11 1822Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 208–9.Google Scholar

25 Brant, to Canning, , 14 11 1822Google Scholar, enclosed in Brant to José Bonifácio, 16 Nov., printed (in English) in Wellington's Despatches, op. cit., 1, 573–5Google Scholar (in full), and in Webster, , op. cit., 11, 393 (extracts).Google Scholar

26 Brant, to Bonifácio, José, 17 11 1822Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 209.Google Scholar

27 Canning, to Liverpool, , 16 11 1822Google Scholar, Canning Papers, 70. Also Canning, to Liverpool, , 18 11 1822Google Scholar, ibid.

28 15 Nov. 1822, Cabinet memorandum, Canning Papers, 131. Extracts printed in Webster, , op, cit.. 11, 393–8.Google Scholar See also de Freitas, Caio, op. cit., 1, 349–52.Google Scholar

29 Canning, to Liverpool, , 18 11 1822Google Scholar, Canning Papers, 70; Hipólito, to Bonifácio, José, no. 5, 18 11 1822Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 212–13.Google Scholar

30 Brant, to Bonifacio, José, 20–30 11 1822Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 216–21Google Scholar; Hipólito, to Bonifácio, José, no. 6, 30 11 1822Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 213–16.Google Scholar There was some confusion over what the British ministers were demanding. Whereas Brant recalled that they had asked for abolition dentro em mui curto prazo, Hipólito referred to a request for abolition dentro em dous anos and, at another point, dentro eu ano.

31 Brant, to Bonifácio, José, 20–30 11 1822Google Scholar; Hipólito no. 6; Hipólito, to Brant, , 21 11 1822Google Scholar, enclosed in Hipólito no. 6.

32 Canning, to Ward, , no. 14, 21 11 1822Google Scholar, printed in Webster, , op. cit., 11, 235–6.Google Scholar

33 Hipólito, no. 7, 15 12 1822Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 223–4Google Scholar; Brant, no. 8, 15 01 1823Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 234–7Google Scholar; Canning, to Chamberlain, (Rio), no. 5, 15 02 1823Google Scholar, Secret, printed in Webster, , op. cit., 1, 220–1.Google Scholar See also Brant no. 30, 6 May, no. 36, 1 June, no. 42, 1 July 1823, A.D.I., 1, 252, 264, 271.Google Scholar

34 Canning no. 5, Secret.

35 Canning, to Liverpool, , 17 02 1823Google Scholar, Secret, Canning Papers, 70.

36 Canning, to Amherst, , 18 02 1823Google Scholar, Canning Papers, 80.

37 Canning, to Amherst, , 28 02 1823Google Scholar, Secret and Conf., Canning, to Amherst, , 28 02 1823Google Scholar, Separate, F.O. 84 (Slave Trade)/24.

38 Brant, to Bonifácio, José, 5 07 1823Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 278Google Scholar, quoted in Manchester, , op. cit., p. 193.Google Scholar

39 See Stein, Stanley J., Vassouras. A Brazilian Coffee County, 1850–1900 (Harvard Univ. Press, 1957), p. 295: Free and slave population of Brazil by province, 1823 and 1872.Google Scholar

40 There had been a steady expansion of the slave trade during the first quarter of the nine teenth century. For the period after 1808, see Lopes, Edmundo Correla, A Escravatura: subsidios para a Sua história (Lisbon, 1944), pp. 139–47Google Scholar; Rodrigues, José Honório, Brasil e Africa: outra horizonte (2nd ed., Rio de Janeiro, 1964)Google Scholar: Eng. trans., Brazil and Africa(Univ. of California Press, 1965), pp. 117–8.Google Scholar In his book Notices of Brazil in 1828 and 1829 (2 vols., London; 1830), 11, 322Google Scholar, the Rev. R. Walsh gives the following frequently quoted figures for landings of slaves in the area of Rio de Janeiro: 1822, 27,363; 1823, 20,349; 1824, 29,503; 1825, 26,254. The following estimates of slaves landed during the years 1822–5 are taken from the quarterly returns sent to the Foreign Office by British consuls in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: 1822, 28,246; 1823, 18,922; 1824, 26,712; 1825, 25,769; Bahia: 1822, 7,656; 1823, 2,672; 1824, 3,137; 1825, 3,840. Smaller numbers of slaves were also landed in Fernambuco and Maranhao, but the figures are incomplete. See also Taunay, Affonso de E., Subsídios para a história do tráfico Africano no Brasil (São Paulo, 1941), pp. 275–305.Google Scholar

41 Chamberlain, to Canning, , no. 55, 26 04 1823Google Scholar, Secret, F.O. 63/259.

42 Bonifácio, José to Brant, , 74 02 1823Google Scholar, A.D.I., 1, 24Google Scholar; Pinto, Pereira, op. cit., 1, 312.Google Scholar

43 Representação à Assembléia geral constituiate e legislativa do Imperio do Brazil sôbre a escravatura (Paris, 1825: English trans., London, 1826).Google Scholar

44 Chamberlain, to Canning, , 2 04 1823Google Scholar, Secret, P.O. 63/259.

45 Chamberlain no. 55, Secret; extracts printed in Webster, , op. cit., 1, 223–5.Google Scholar

46 Chamberlain no. 55, Secret. An article in O Espelho, 30 May, by ‘0 Philanthrope’ (the Emperor Dom Pedro himself) recommended abolition after two years (enclosed in Chamberlain to Canning, 6 June 1823, F.O. 63/259).

47 Amherst, to Bonifácio, José, 17 05 1823Google Scholar, A.D.I., 11, 444Google Scholar; Amherst, to Canning, , 17 05Google Scholar, Secret, F.O. 84/24; Amherst to Canning, 21 May, Priv., Canning Papers, 80.

48 Bonifácio, José to Chamberlain, , 23 05Google Scholar, enclosed in Chamberlain, to Canning, , no. 62, 24 05 1823, F.O. 63/259.Google Scholar

49 Chamberlain, to Canning, , 21 10 1823Google Scholar, Sep. and Secret, F.O. 84/24.

50 See Alves, João Luís, ‘A Questão do Elemento Servil. A Extincção do Tráfico e a Lei de Reprcssão de 1850. Liberdade dos Nascituros’, Revista do instituto Histórico e Geogràfico Brasileiro, Tomo Especial, 1914, iv, 190–1.Google Scholar

51 Chamberlain, to Canning, , 21 10 1823, Secret, F.O. 84/24.Google Scholar

52 Canning, to Chamberlain, , no. 10, 5 08 1823, F.O. 84/24.Google Scholar Yet before leaving London Brant had suggested that the best way for Britain to secure an anti-slave trade agreement with Brazil would be by allowing an interim period of ten years before abolition (Brant to Canning, 3 Aug., enclosed in Brant to Carneiro de Campos, 13 Oct. 1823, A.D.I., 1, 289–90).Google Scholar

53 For some of the arguments influencing Canning, see Manchester, , op. cit., pp. 193–4.Google Scholar

54 Chamberlain, to Canning, , no. 164, 31 12 1823Google Scholar, Secret, printed in Webster, , op. cit., 1, 232–3Google Scholar; Chamberlain, to Canning, , no. 3, 7 01 1824Google Scholar, Secret, Webster, , op. cit., 1, 235.Google Scholar

55 Instructions, 3 Jan. 1824, A.D.I., I, 39–53Google Scholar; Carvalho c Mello to Brant and Gamciro Pessôa, 16 Feb. 1824, Arquivo Histórico do Itamaraty (Rio de Janeiro), hereafter cited as A.H.I., 268/1/14; Carvalho e Mello to Brant and Pessôa, 28 Aug. 1824, A.D.I., 1, 89–90.Google Scholar See also de Freitas, Caio, op. cit., 11, 64–8Google Scholar; Manchester, Alan K., ‘The Recognition of Brazilian Independence’, H.A.H.R., 31 (1951), 86–7Google Scholar; Calógeras, João Pandiá, A Politica Exterior do Império (2 vols., Rio de Janeiro, 1927–1928), 11, 78–84.Google Scholar

56 Brant and Gameiro Pessôa to Carvalho e Mello, 6 June 1824, A.D.I., 11, 57.Google Scholar

57 For British mediation between Portugal and Brazil and the London Conferences, see Manchester, , British Preeminence, op. cit., pp. 192–8Google Scholar; de Freitas, Caio, op. cit., 11, 72–136Google Scholar; Calógeras, , op. cit., 11, 111 ff.Google Scholar; Lima, Oliveira, O Reconhecimento do Império (1822–7) (Rio de Janeiro, 1902), pp. 73–166.Google Scholar

58 Canning, to Stuart, , no. 1, 14 03 1825Google Scholar, F.O. 13 (Brazil)/1; extracts in Webster, , op. cit., 1, 262–72Google Scholar; also see de Freitas, Caio, op. cit., 11, 193–217.Google Scholar

59 For Stuart's mission to Lisbon, sec de Freitas, Caio, op. cit., 11, 221–58Google Scholar; Manchester, , H.A.H.R. (1951), op. cit., pp. 94–5.Google Scholar

60 For Stuart's negotiations in Rio on behalf of Portugal, see de Freitas, Caio, op. cit., 11, 271–302Google Scholar; Manchester, , H.A.H.R. (1951), op. cit., pp. 95–6Google Scholar; Manchester, , British Preeminence, op. cit., pp. 201–3.Google Scholar The text of the Aug. 1825 Treaty is printed in Burns, E. Bradford, A Documentary History of Brazil (New York, 1966), pp. 219–22.Google Scholar Dom Pedro was required to promise never to permit any Portuguese African territory to unite with Brazil (there had been disturbances in Luanda and Benguela which through the slave trade enjoyed such close ties with Brazil). In addition to other, broader, considerations Britain had sound abolitionist reasons for supporting Portugal in this demand. For the unconvincing argument that ‘the great idea’ of British diplomacy in this period was not so much the abolition of the slave trade as the separation of Brazil and Africa so as to clear the way for British imperial expansion and the development of Africa as an economic rival of Brazil, see Rodrigues, , op. cit., pp. 126, 138, 141–2, 148–9, 154–5, 165, 170, 173.Google Scholar

61 Canning, to Stuart, , 7 05 1825Google Scholar, F.O. 13/1; Canning, to Stuart, , no. 19, 12 05 1825, P.O. 13/1.Google Scholar In November Canning hinted that Britain might give up its commercial privileges in Brazil if their loss were compensated by the simultaneous attainment of such a ‘great moral and political good’ (Canning, to Stuart, , 28 01 1825, F.O. 13/2).Google Scholar

62 Stuart, to Canning, , 25 07 1825, F.O. 13/4Google Scholar

63 On the negotiation of the abolition treaty of Oct. 1825, Stuart, to Canning, , 25 07, 24 08, 30 08 1825Google Scholar, F.O. 13/4, 18 Oct. 1825, F.O. 128 (Brazil: Rio legation archives)/4, 21 Oct. 1825, F.O. 13/6, 11 Feb. 1826, Priv., printed in Webster, , op. cit., 1, 297–8Google Scholar; Stuart, to Planta, (P.O.), 5 09 1825Google Scholar, Planta, to Canning, , 5 10 1826Google Scholar, Priv., Canning Papers, 109; Stuart, to Paranaguá, , 15 10Google Scholar, Amaro, Santo and Paranaguá, to Stuart, , 18 10Google Scholar, Stuart, to Amaro, Santo and Paranaguá, , 20 10 1825Google Scholar, A.D.I., vi, 159–60, 161–2, 163–5Google Scholar; Carvalho e Mello to Gameiro Pessôa, 28 Sept. 1825, V. de Inhambupe (Foreign Minister) to V. de Itabayana (Gameiro Pessôa), no. 118, 3 Feb. 1826, A.H.I. 268/1/14; Stuart, to Inhambupe, , 15 04 1826Google Scholar, A.H.I. 273/1/8. On the negotiations for the commercial treaty of Oct. 1825, see Pryor, A. J., Anglo-Brazilian Commercial Relations and the Evolution of Brazilian Tariff Policy, 1822–1850 (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, 1965), pp. 32–44Google Scholar; de Freitas, Caio, op. cit., 11, 348–68.Google Scholar The treaties were published in the Diario Fluminense (Rio de Janeiro), 14 Nov. 1825, and subsequently in the London press—much to Canning's annoyance.

64 Quoted in Temperley, The Foreign Policy of Canning, 1822–1827 (London, 1925), pp. 508–9.Google Scholar

65 Canning, to Liverpool, , 27 11 1825Google Scholar, printed in Some Official Correspondence of George Canning, ed. Stapleton, Edward J. (2 vols., London, 1887), 1, 334.Google Scholar

66 Canning, to Stuart, , no. 1, 12 01 1826, F.O. 84/56.Google Scholar Also Canning, to Huskisson, , 22 11, 26 11, 30 12 1825Google Scholar, Canning Papers, 117. Inhambupe, to Paranaguá, , 9 01 1826Google Scholar, A.D.I., 11, 324Google Scholar; Canning, to Stuart, , no. 2, 12 01 1826, F.O. 13/17.Google Scholar The Law Officers of the Crown supported this ‘generally recognized principle’, 8 Dec. 1825, F.O. 83 (Great Britain and General)/2343. Dr Stephen Lushington, a well-known abolitionist M.P. and student of international law, could not recall that the principle had ever been maintained by any writer on international law, nor upheld by any state, Memorandum, 26 Jan. 1826, F.O. 84/60.

67 Canning, to Stuart, , no. 1, 12 01 1826, P.O. 84/56.Google Scholar

68 memorandum, Huskisson, 1 01 1826, F.O. 13/33Google Scholar; Huskisson, to Canning, , 1 01 1826, Priv., Canning Papers, 68.Google Scholar

69 See Alves, , op. cit., pp. 192–3.Google Scholar

70 Canning, to Gordon, , no. 1, 1 08, no. 3, 1 08 1826, F.O. 13/25.Google Scholar

71 Canning, to Gordon, , 18 12 1826, Priv., Canning Papers, 126.Google Scholar

72 Quoted in Calógeras, , op. cit., 11, 497.Google Scholar

73 A'Court, to Canning, , 3 10 1826, F.O. 84/54Google Scholar; see Bandinel, , op. cit., pp. 157–8.Google Scholar In the event, it was December 1836 before Portugal prohibited the slave trade by law and July 1842 before a new and comprehensive Anglo-Portuguese abolition treaty was signed, following the adoption by Britain in 1839 of coercive anti-slave trade measures. See my article ‘Britain, Portugal and the Suppression of the Brazilian Slave Trade: the Origins of Lord Palmerston's Act of 1839’, English Historical Review, 80 (1965), 767–84.Google Scholar

74 Gordon, to Canning, , no. 1, 27 11, no. 2, 27 11 1826, F.O. 84/56Google Scholar; Gordon, to Canning, , no. 5, 27 11, no. 6, 27 11, no. 7, 27 11 1826, F.O. 13/26Google Scholar; Inhambupe, to Itabayana, , 27 11, 4 12 1826, A.H.I. 268/1/14.Google Scholar

75 Treaty of 23 Nov. 1826, B.F.S.P., 14, 609–12Google Scholar; Pinto, Percira, op. cit., 1, 389–93.Google Scholar There was widespread and vehement opposition in Brazil to a treaty which, as Gordon later remarked, had been ‘ceded at our request in opposition to the views and wishes of the whole Empire’ (Gordon to Dudley, no. 1, 17 May 1828, P.O. 84/84). For the angry debate in the Chamber nf Deputies, 2–4 July 1827, see Rodrigues, , op. cit., pp. 144–54.Google Scholar The Brazilian government tried and failed to persuade Britain to agree to a postponement of the date now set for final abolition.

76 On the negotiation of the Anglo-Brazilian commercial treaty of 1827, see Pryor, , op. cit., pp. 45–7Google Scholar; de Freitas, Caio, op. cit., 11, 375–7Google Scholar; Manchester, , British Preeminence, op. cit., pp. 206–11.Google Scholar

77 See Alves, , op. cit., pp. 208–11Google Scholar; Malheiro, Agostinho Marques Perdigão, A Escravidão no Brasil (3 vols., Rio de Janeiro, 1867), 111, Appendix 2.Google Scholar

78 See Walsh, , op. cit., 11, 322Google Scholar; Filho, Luís Vianna, O Negro na Bahia (Rio de Janeiro, 1946), p. 98.Google Scholar Also quarterly returns of British consuls in Brazil.

79 Stein, , Vassouras, op. cit., p. 12.Google Scholar See also Furtado, , op. cit., pp. 123–4Google Scholar; Costa, Emília Viotti da, Da Sentala à Colônia (São Paulo, 1966), pp. 19–24.Google Scholar

80 See my forthcoming book, The Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade. Britain, Brazil and the Slave Trade Question, 1807–1869, to be published by Cambridge University Press.