In the 1820s he acknowledged his WI interests but professed support for abolition - but did nothing to aid the cause. Instead he urged abolitionists to campaign with him against 'white slaves' in England.
He claimed, in the debates on abolition in 1833, that 'in spite of slavery, the slaves in the West Indies were better off than the labourers of this country'. (Ministerial plan for the abolition of slavery, HC Deb 31 July 1833 vol 20, col. 216).
Generally, an advocate of radical Parliamentary Reform (including universal manhood suffrage though he supported the more moderate proposals of 1831-32), free trade and abolition of the Corn Laws (which he had been in favour of since the 1820s), and economy and retrenchment in government expenditure.
See D. R. Fisher (ed.), The House of Commons 1820-1832 (7 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press for the History of Parliament Trust, 2009), V, pp. 839-44
The Times, 12 July 1841, described James as a Radical in the election of 1841. Spoke in the Sugar Duties debates in 1844 in defence of planter interests.
Elections / Constituences |
Carlisle Cumberland1820 - 1826
|
Carlisle Cumberland1832 - 1835
Note: date of start of tenure Carlisle, 1831 is approximate. |
Cumberland Eastern Cumberland1836 - 1847
|
Parliamentary Notes |
Ministerial plan for the abolition of slavery: House to go into Committee House of Commons 29/07/1833
Debate on whether the Treasury should grant compensation to the planters of £20m. Proprietor of one Jamaican estate with ‘several slaves’. Claimed that they were able to amass ‘considerable sums of money from their savings, when not engaged at their daily employment’ including one with £200+ (derived from his land). Argued against granting of wages to slaves even if he ‘rejoiced’ at emancipation. Besides, ‘that they were slaves it was true; but were there, he would ask, no such slaves in England – men who laboured and toiled to earn a subsistence?’ See also HC Deb 31 July 1833 vol 20, col. 216: he claimed, in the debates on abolition in 1833, that 'in spite of slavery, the slaves in the West Indies were better off than the labourers of this country'. |