Slavery Fight Lasted Beyond Austen

Posted

in

by

Slavery was one of the most contentious issues of Jane Austen’s time. Some scholars claim that she ignored the issue or even accepted the legitimacy of the practice. Others claim that her novel Mansfield Park serves as an anti-slavery tract. For certain, Austen would have tackled the complex issue in a complex way.

The fight to abolish the slave trade—the buying and selling of slaves—had been raging since 1787, when Thomas Clarkson, who had won an essay contest at Cambridge condemning slavery, helped form the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Another founding member was Josiah Wedgwood, the pottery magnate, who created the official emblem of the group, an image of a chained slave (see image) with the plaintive cry “Am I Not a Man and a Brother?”

Soon after, Clarkson gave William Wilberforce a copy of his pamphlet. Shortly after that came the famous meeting under the oak tree on William Pitt’s estate in which Pitt and William Grenville, two future prime ministers, convinced Wilberforce to take up abolition as his main political cause in the House of Commons. In Pitt’s fabled words, “We were too young to realize that certain things are impossible, so we will do them anyway.”

It was Grenville who shepherded the final bill through after Pitt’s death in 1806. Ironically, Pitt had become a (temporary) opponent to abolition because the cause made it harder for him to keep his pro-war political coalition together against France.

The climactic vote to end the slave trade came in March 1807, when Jane Austen was at the peak of her authorial powers. It took another generation before England abolished slavery entirely—six months after the death of Wilberforce in July 1833. Three days before he died, Wilberforce is said to have been assured of the passage of the bill. The end to slavery in all English possessions was phased in over six years, beginning in 1834, and slave owners received twenty million pounds in recompense. (The period was later shortened to three, and several islands controlled by the East India Company were included.)

Josiah Wedgwood of the famous pottery family was an ardent abolitionist. He created this image as the symbol of the effort to end slavery.

It is not surprising that it took twenty years to end the purchase of human flesh and another twenty-six to end slavery itself. The practice was deeply embedded in the English economy.

In the early years, the focus was to end the misery of the capture, sale, and transport of slaves, though abolitionists assumed the end to slavery would come eventually. There was the hope that, if slave holders could not buy more, they would treat their current slaves better: It was cheaper to buy a new human being than to feed one you had.

Slavery is perniciously difficult to eliminate once it is in place, for free labor has an addictive effect on the beneficiaries. The slave trade represented 5 percent of the British economy, with a slave ship departing England every day. When everything is tallied—manufactured goods, tools, and rum to Africa; slaves to America; rum, sugar, tobacco and cotton to England—the Triangular Trade represented 80 percent of England’s overseas trade. Liverpool and Bristol were the two largest slave-related ports, which gives us the hint that Mrs. Elton’s family was involved in Emma.

Its tentacles stretched far enough to ensnare the Austen family. Mr. Austen’s half-brother, William Hampson, owned a Jamaica plantation, and Jane’s father was also a trustee of a slave plantation in Antigua for a friend, James Nibbs. Nibbs was godfather to Jane’s brother, James. It does not appear that Mr. Austen ever did any work related to the trust.

Aunt Leigh-Perrott was heir to a plantation in Barbados, meaning that any inheritance from that side of the family—which the genteelly poor Austens desired—would have been tainted. The family received none, though, until Aunt Leigh-Perrot’s death in 1836, after slavery itself had been voted out.

What of Jane Austen’s own point of view? We know that her favorite authors opposed slavery, including the poet William Cowper, who penned the famous lines celebrating Lord Mansfield’s freeing of a black slave in England in 1772: “Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs/Receive our air, that moment they are free;/They touch our country, and their shackles fall.”

Jane’s niece Fanny had an anti-slavery story in her diary in 1809; it’s likely her views would have been shaped by Jane, Cassandra, and others of her aunts’ generation. Frank Austen is the only Austen sibling known to have actively denounced slavery during her life. His views likely shaped Jane’s.

In a letter home in 1808, Frank compared the relatively “mild” form of slavery practiced at St. Helena in the eastern Atlantic with the “harshness and despotism” practiced in the West Indies. In St. Helena, a slave owner could not “inflict chastisement” on a “refractory” slave; he must apply to the magistrate for relief. Frank concluded with characteristic honesty:

“This is wholesome regulation as far as it goes, but slavery however it may be modified is still slavery. [No] trace of it should be found … in countries dependent on England, or colonized by her subjects.”

In her letters, Austen indirectly praises Thomas Clarkson by saying she was “as much in love” with author Charles Pasley as she ever was with Clarkson—a likely reference to Clarkson’s book, History of the Abolition of the Slave Trade (1808).

Mansfield Park has a number of references to slavery, from the title itself—Lord Mansfield having freed the slave Somerset and by extension all slaves in England—to Mrs. Norris, evidently named for a slaver who tormented the abolitionists, particularly Clarkson. Whether the novel itself stands opposed to slavery is a matter of dispute; personally, I believe Austen was too much of an artist to telegraph her own views.

All of these references, however, come after the end to the slave trade in early 1807. Barring the discovery of new family letters, it’s unlikely we’ll know Austen’s true views during the years leading up to 1807. Her beliefs likely evolved along with those of England in general, with little thought early on and a growing realization of the horrors of slavery as opponents brought its true practices into public view.

Given her respect for her older brother, Frank’s ardent opposition to slavery likely galvanized her own opposition as she matured.

There’s poetic justice that the Royal Navy, which had earlier protected slaving ships making the Middle Passage from Africa to the Americas, now enforced the ban on slave traffic. Two generations of Austen men, beginning with Frank and Charles and continuing through their self-named sons, intercepted slavers on the open seas.

And long after Jane’s death, another brother, Henry, attended the first international antislavery convention in London in 1840. Devoney Looser, who uncovered this information, points out that in one generation the family went from indirect beneficiaries of slavery (as all British families were) to being staunchly opposed.

My new book, Jane Austen and the Creation of Modern Fiction: Six Novels in “a Style Entirely New,” investigates her development as a writer and shows how her innovations as a prose stylist set the course for modern fiction. It is available from Jane Austen Books at a special low price.

The Marriage of Miss Jane Austen is also available from Jane Austen Books and Amazon. The trilogy traces love from a charming courtship through the richness and complexity of marriage and concludes with a test of the heroine’s courage and moral convictions. A “boxed set” that combines all three in an e-book format is also available.

7 responses to “Slavery Fight Lasted Beyond Austen”

  1. cindie snyder Avatar
    cindie snyder

    Informative post! I’ m glad slavery was abolished! That picture is very moving.

  2. Regina Jeffers Avatar

    As part of my AP Language Class, I taught the narrative from Olaudah Equiano. It was always an interesting conversation when I was teaching in the South, especially in the 1970s (though the ideas were incorporated in a different manner then, more on the necessity of the composition itself, rather than the language choices). Later in North Carolina in the early 2000s, I no longer heard the amazement in the voices of the young people in my classes. I do not know whether that was a good thing or not. Some time I would like to hear your opinion of the film “Amazing Grace.” There was so much I adored about it and so much I thought was unnecessary. Historically speaking in its accuracy, it varied greatly.

    1. collinshemingway Avatar

      Regina, I saw the movie years ago, before I’d done much reading about slavery in Britain. It would be fascinating again to see it now. A slave trader as a youth, Newton later was honest about the brutality, especially toward enslaved women. Equiano’s story is amazing–as much after his freedom as before.

  3. Alice McVeigh Avatar
    Alice McVeigh

    Very interesting… and, I feel, convincing about Austen’s own views on slavery. Impossible to imagine her not hating it, and her naval brothers’ intercepting those vessels contributing to that. Perhaps she was outspoken about it in letters she asked Cassandra to dispose of, even? XXAlice

    1. collinshemingway Avatar

      Alice, it would be wonderful to have something in Jane’s own hand directly about her feelings toward slavery. It’s clear that she personally opposed it (or at least the slave trade), but it’s not clear how strongly she felt–whether she gave it a great deal of thought.

  4. Don Jacobson Avatar
    Don Jacobson

    Your research aligns perfectly with what I discovered while writing about the parliamentary battle over the slave trade in my 2024 novel, “In Westminster’s Halls: A Pride and Prejudice Variation.” The detail of your work is telling and informative for readers of the Austenesque persuasion.

    Slavery and the fight against it were integral to the social fabric of the time- Austen’s time.

    My focus was on the first step, taking Britain out of the slave trade of enslaved bodies from Africa. The timing of 1807 was driven by the United States Constitution, which prohibited the importation of slaves thirty years after ratification in 1787. France had abolished slavery, so Britain needed to be on the side of the angels, too. The debates were fascinating. I am sure that Jane was deeply involved in this, the pre-eminent social question of her time. As Devoney Looser pointed out, the effort to turn the Austen family into pro-slavery sympathizers fails for lack of evidence. Thus, I wonder how Jane Austen might have portrayed Darcy, Elizabeth, and Wickham in the fight against the trade.

    Looser answers that to my satisfaction in an interview with the ASU newspaper.

    “Jane Austen directly addresses questions of slavery and the slave trade in two of her novels, ‘Mansfield Park’ and ‘Emma.’ She included a mixed-race West Indian heiress in her unfinished and long-unpublished last novel, ‘Sanditon.’ In her private letters, she wrote of loving the writings of Thomas Clarkson, a noted anti-slavery activist. This isn’t a lot to go on, but it shows that Austen was aware of and interested in questions of race and slavery.

    “I believe the textual evidence points to her being an advocate for reform. This new evidence shows that her family’s affiliations to slavery and colonialism changed over time, from 1760 to 1840. During the period of that time when she was alive, 1775 to 1817, there were also immense changes afoot,” she added.

  5. collinshemingway Avatar

    Don, the question is how strongly Austen felt. Importance social issues remain in the background in her novels. I have no doubt that Frank’s strong views influenced hers, but to what degree? The impetus for ending the slave trade was the assumption that the inability to purchase more human beings would improve the lot of those still enslaved. But as late as the year of Austen’s death, efforts to improve conditions for the enslaved in the West Indies ran into serious resistance. Monk Lewis, the gothic writer, who inherited two plantations in Jamaica, was nearly arrested in 1817 for making things too “easy” for people on his plantations and sowing “dissent.” Though the US in theory ended the importation of slaves in 1807, the trade continued (though diminished), the last ship arriving in Mobile Bay in 1860.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Always Austen

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading