Backwoodsman, the point I was attempting to make was that the British had no economic need to have an imported source of cheap labor, so the opposition to the Wilberforce campaign and the later one to abolish slavery itself was much less than it could have been. (It is interesting that the Act of 1833 did not abolish slavery in India where, arguably, there was a need for a cheap non-mobile labor force.) This is the same reason that the Abolitionist process was much easier in the American Northeast than the Southeast. Perhaps if there had not been a surplus of labor in both places, and if their respective economies had not been amenable to industrialization, the course of history would had been different.