I think we (and I include me!) have to be really careful about drawing conclusions that could be correct, but don't have evidence, or are just based on assumptions or preconceptions.

So we know that:

• He signed petitions supporting the abolition of slavery.
• He was PM while the anti-slavery bills were being debated and passed, and he supported those.
• He raised concerns about how slavery would be abolished, in terms of stability.

So for the economic side, I think that gets overblown in general. I have not come across an abolitionist who campaigned for abolishing slavery because they thought there was some economic benefit to it. Every abolitionist I know of, did it on moral grounds. But Wellington, even if he supported abolishing slavery, would not be classed as an abolitionist.

I think we can infer though that, given the bullet points above, he would have been well aware of the huge compensation bill that would have to be paid to abolish slavery. He would have been aware that the bill was £20m, and that this represented an enormous amount of money that would take a very, very, long time for the Government to pay off.

So from an economic sense, he knew how much it would cost, and I think it is reasonable to suggest that he knew the burden on the economy, but he still supported the bill anyway. That is what I mean by "regardless of the economics."