Considerations on the present peace, as far as it is relative to the colonies, and the African trade

In Short

This pamphlet is a polemical tract written in the immediate aftermath of the Seven Years’ War. It functions as an urgent, self-interested appeal to the British government and colonial planters to reorganize the management of the African trade. The work argues that the existing system, overseen by an inefficient and corrupt committee, has failed to supply the sugar colonies with the necessary number of enslaved people. It remains a chilling primary record of how eighteenth-century commerce was viewed through the lens of colonial expansion, labor exploitation, and imperial rivalry.

The Story

The narrative begins with an explicit address to the "British Planters," positioning the authors not as professional writers, but as concerned parties seeking to expose systemic mismanagement. The core of the argument is that the health of the British economy is tethered to the output of its sugar colonies, which in turn depends on a constant, affordable influx of enslaved people. The authors argue that since 1750, a poorly designed administrative structure for the African trade has allowed merchants and local fort commanders to prioritize their own profits over the needs of the planters.

The text moves from this internal critique to an aggressive stance against international competitors, specifically the French. The authors contend that the French have successfully out-competed the British in acquiring "hardy" laborers from the African coast, which allowed French sugar islands to thrive at the expense of British interests. They view the recent peace negotiations as a critical moment to rectify this, advocating for the state to impose strict regulations that would prevent British subjects from selling enslaved people to the French, even if those islands were to be returned to French control.

As the argument progresses, the authors broaden their scope to the logistical and financial failings of the "African committee," the body responsible for maintaining British forts on the coast. They allege that these officials are not merely administrators but are active, corrupt traders who use public funds and government-maintained fortresses to store their own goods and facilitate their private commercial ventures. The authors demand that the government revert to a more rigorous system of oversight and financial accountability, similar to that of the defunct Royal African Company.

The conclusion of the pamphlet serves as both a final plea and a threat. The authors insist that if the government does not take immediate steps to centralize and protect the trade, the British colonies will continue to suffer from labor shortages and inflated costs. By framing the trade as a "fundamental support" of the nation, they present their demands as a matter of national security. The text ends with a formal petition, signed by the authors, which serves as a synthesis of their demands for "moderate terms" and a secure supply of labor, attempting to codify their grievances into a blueprint for future legislative action.

How It Unfolds

The call to action The authors address the British planters directly, asserting that the African trade has been mismanaged since 1750 to the detriment of colonial agriculture. They define the "real planter" against the merchant-speculator, framing the latter as a source of market instability and high costs.

The critique of the French The text shifts to an analysis of international competition, arguing that the French have historically secured better access to the African coast. The authors propose that the British government use its military and diplomatic power to block the French from these markets, regardless of the peace terms.

The exposure of local corruption The argument deepens by alleging that the African committee’s own officers use public fortresses as personal warehouses for their private trade. The authors provide anecdotal evidence of how these officials intimidate private traders and force them to pay exorbitant prices.

The demand for administrative reform The authors call for a return to strict government auditing of all expenditures related to the African trade. They propose that the current committee be replaced or heavily regulated to ensure that public money is not embezzled by those tasked with maintaining the forts.

The final petition The work culminates in a formal plea to the legislature, summarizing the necessity of a state-guaranteed, efficient trade system. This section acts as a summation of their political agenda, emphasizing that national wealth is inextricably linked to the success of the plantations.

The People

The text features few individual characters, focusing instead on institutional actors and generalized figures. The "British Planters" are the intended beneficiaries, represented as the industrious heart of the empire, whose primary obstacle is a scarcity of labor and the high costs driven by corrupt middlemen.

The "African committee" and their agents, such as the mentioned Mr. Brew and Mr. Smith, serve as the primary antagonists. The authors characterize them as self-interested, manipulative actors who use their positions of public trust to secure private wealth. These figures are contrasted with the "real planter," who is presented as a victim of the committee's greed.

The "French" represent the external threat. They are depicted as persistent, capable rivals who have used the war and subsequent trade policies to gain an unfair advantage. Finally, the authors include themselves as the voice of the "public interest," positioning their own observations as the only clear-eyed assessment of a system on the verge of ruin.

In Its Own Voice

It must be allowed by those who have a general knowledge of the trade and commerce of Great-Britain and Ireland, that the Negro-trade on the coast of Africa, is the chief and fundamental support of the British colonies, by supplying them with that race of useful people called Negroes, to be employed in cultivating the lands.

The authors declare this as the fundamental economic premise of the entire pamphlet.

It is also as true that Mr. Samuel Smith, merchant, in the Old Jury in London, one of the committee of the company of merchants trading to Africa, was the acting agent for Messrs. Brew, Westgate and Flemming, during their residence in Africa; that he received their consignments from thence, and acted for them by commission after their arrival in England.

This serves as a specific accusation of corruption against a member of the management committee.

What It's Really About

The work is a treatise on the intersection of colonial mercantilism and state-sanctioned exploitation. Its central argument is that the "national wealth" of Great Britain is functionally dependent on the total control of the supply chain of enslaved human beings. The authors treat the Atlantic trade as a closed system where any profit made by a foreign power, or any obstruction caused by a corrupt middleman, is a direct theft from the British treasury. The underlying question is not one of morality—which the authors dismiss with a brief, cold justification—but one of efficiency, state power, and the structural integrity of the colonial model. It is a document about how an empire attempts to bureaucratize its own greed to sustain its overseas expansion.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of the transatlantic slave trade, the mechanics of eighteenth-century mercantilism, or the evolution of British imperial policy will find this text invaluable. It is a difficult, uncomfortable, and often dry read that prioritizes trade logistics, accounting, and political maneuvering over narrative. The prose is functional and combative, reflecting the urgency of a pamphlet written for an immediate, partisan audience.

The primary challenge for a modern reader is the brutal, matter-of-fact tone regarding the commodification of human life. The authors describe enslaved people as "stock" or "valuable people" to be managed, and they justify the trade through common colonial rationalizations of the time. This book does not offer a moral critique of the system; rather, it offers a window into the mind of those who built and maintained that system, revealing how they justified their actions to themselves and their government through the language of necessity and economic "utility." It remains a stark, chilling reminder of how easily historical atrocities were framed as mere matters of administrative policy and commercial interest. It is a document that reveals the cold, calculated logic of an empire at its height.