Newly uncovered historical records reveal that the Bank of England and Britain’s financial infrastructure were fundamentally intertwined with the transatlantic slave trade from their very inception. The investigation, which has brought to light details previously obscured by centuries of historical silence, demonstrates that the exploitation of enslaved Africans was not merely a peripheral aspect of early financial development but a foundational element that shaped the very architecture of Britain’s monetary system.
Directors and Founders Among the Slave Trade Elite
The research conducted by historians examining the Register of British Slave Traders has identified 24 Bank of England directors who were directly invested in the trafficking of Enslaved Africans. Among these, four individuals served as founding directors when the institution was established in 1694, while the remaining twenty held positions throughout the eighteenth century. Most notably, Christopher Puller, who served as director for eleven years until his death in 1789, was simultaneously a weapons supplier for the slave trade and co-owner of a voyage that transported Enslaved people from The Gambia to Jamaica.
Further scrutiny reveals that at least thirty founding subscribers to the Bank itself had investments in the transatlantic trafficking enterprise. This list includes King William III and Queen Mary II, who held shares in the Royal African Company, demonstrating how even the Crown’s financial participation was linked to human exploitation. Wealth generated from the slave trade formed a substantial portion of the Bank’s initial capitalisation, according to Dr Michael Bennett of the University of Sheffield, whose extensive research has illuminated these connections.
The Financial Architecture of Exploitation
“Slave traders and their wealth were firmly embedded within Britain’s, especially London’s, private banks and financial corporations during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,” explains Dr Bennett. “They shaped the development of the financial system.” His analysis reveals that banks and insurance companies provided the essential financial services that both supported and profited enormously from the transatlantic slave economy. The Bank of England, rather than existing in opposition to this system, actively participated by providing direct financial services to major trading entities including the Royal African Company and the South Sea Company.
The institution’s complicity extended beyond mere service provision. Historical records show that the Bank maintained ongoing relationships with these exploitative enterprises throughout their operational lifespan, creating a financial infrastructure that normalised and perpetuated human trafficking. This integration meant that the very mechanisms designed to facilitate legitimate commerce were harnessed to enable one of history’s most brutal economic systems.
Institutional Complicity and Modern Reckoning
The revelations build upon earlier research by the Legacies of British Slavery archive at University College London, which documented how sixteen former governors and twenty-six directors of the Bank held financial interests in plantation ownership and Enslaved labour prior to abolition in 1833. Perhaps most strikingly, the Bank itself participated in the compensation payments totalling £20 million—equivalent to approximately £23 billion in today’s currency—disbursed to Enslavers under the 1833 abolition legislation, funds that were extracted from the very people who had been trafficked and exploited.
The 2020 Black Lives Matter protests catalysed broader acknowledgment across British financial institutions of their historical connections to slavery. Dr Nicholas Draper, who led the Legacies of British Slavery research and contributed to the current investigation, discovered extensive documentation showing how private banks and financial organisations were founded and sustained through Enslaved labour. More recently, Dr Bennett’s findings revealed that the Bank of England had directly owned 599 Enslaved individuals on two plantations, names that appeared in an exhibition the institution mounted in 2022—most bearing European names like Pierre, Catherine and Alexandre, with no record of their African origins or the trauma of their kidnapping.
A Case Study in Institutional Corruption
Humphry Morice exemplifies the depth of corruption within the Bank’s leadership during this period. Serving as director and governor from 1727 to 1729, this Member of Parliament not only participated in the Bank’s operations but also defrauded the institution to finance his trafficking activities. Professor Matthew David Mitchell describes Morice as “the biggest London-based trafficker of enslaved human beings from Africa to the British colonies in America,” responsible for equipping approximately 110 voyages between 1704 and 1732 that transported more than 30,000 Enslaved men, women and children to locations including Jamaica, Barbados and Virginia. For Morice, this trafficking represented his primary commercial endeavour, making him a central figure in the brutal machinery of human exploitation.
The Bank of England has formally acknowledged this history and issued apologies for the actions of its past governors and directors. However, the Treasury has declined to offer similar recognition or apology, maintaining a governmental stance that resists engaging with questions of reparations or accepting responsibility for centuries of trafficking and Enslavement. This divergence in institutional responses reflects ongoing tensions regarding historical accountability and the contemporary implications of colonial-era wealth accumulation.
Why it Matters
These revelations fundamentally challenge our understanding of how modern financial institutions developed and expose the violent foundations upon which British economic power was constructed. The findings intensify calls from Caribbean and African nations for reparative justice and demand that governments confront uncomfortable truths about the wealth accumulated through systematic human rights violations. As Britain continues to grapple with its colonial legacy, this research forces a reckoning with how the very institutions meant to regulate and protect economic activity were complicit in enabling one of history’s greatest crimes against humanity.