Question

in 1806, the antislavery forces brought a new bill before parliament that would limit british involvement in the slave trade. some of the most powerful testimony in favor of the bill came from former army officers who had been to the caribbean and had seen the courage of the former slaves and the horrors of slavery. the slaves spoke through the testimony of the very men who had gone to fight them. one member of parliament told his colleagues of the tortures he had seen in the islands. slavery was not an abstraction, an economic force, a counter in the game of world politics—it was the suffering of men and women. members of parliament were being confronted with the reality of slavery, just as audiences at clarksons lectures were when he showed shackles and whips. while parliament debated the new bill, clarkson and his allies went on lecturing, talking, changing minds all across england. they succeeded. newspapers reported that even in bristol, a port city with a harbor filled with how does this passage support the claim that the sugar trade led to the end of slavery in some parts of the world? it emphasizes that parliament was biased toward plantation owners and wrongfully supported it. it shows that the french followed the example of english in overthrowing the crown is nee 311111 people. it describes how testimony on the bill from sugar plantations convinced parliament to end the slave trade. it demonstrates that neither britain nor france wanted to make changes in the practice of until america did.

Explanation:

The passage details how testimony from army - officers about the horrors of slavery on sugar plantations influenced Parliament's view on the bill to limit the slave - trade. This shows how such testimony convinced Parliament about the need to act against the slave - trade, which is related to the end of slavery in some parts of the world.

Answer:

It describes how testimony on the brutal practices on sugar plantations convinced Parliament to act on the slave trade.