I suspect that sentence is a typographical error, or, just as likely, Freudian slip.
What is wrong with it? William Wilberforce cleverly tricked the pro-slavery forces into allowing the legislation to go through, because they didn't see how it would eventually allow complete and total interdiction of the slave trade by the English navy.
A radical change of tactics, which involved the introduction of a bill to ban British subjects from aiding or participating in the slave trade to the French colonies, was suggested by maritime lawyer James Stephen.[142] It was a shrewd move, since the majority of British ships were now flying American flags and supplying slaves to foreign colonies with whom Britain was at war.[143] A bill was introduced and approved by the cabinet, and Wilberforce and other abolitionists maintained a self-imposed silence, so as not to draw any attention to the effect of the bill.[144][145] The approach proved successful, and the new Foreign Slave Trade Bill was quickly passed, and received royal assent on 23 May 1806.[
quoting BJK: "I suspect that sentence is a typographical error, or, just as likely, Freudian slip."
DiogenesLamp: "What is wrong with it?
William Wilberforce cleverly tricked the pro-slavery forces into allowing the legislation to go through..."
William Wilberforce was a Member of Britain's Parliament, from 1780 to 1825.
He had nothing to do with any US Navigation Act, or tricking Southern Congressmen into supporting legislation which hurt their own economic interests.
It's not clear to me if you are confused or simply confusing, but there does seem to be a mix-up here.