1 This paper is part of Prof. Wolfgang Zach’s research project English Literature and Slavery 1772-1834: From the Beginning of the Abolitionist Movement to the Abolition of Slavery financed by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 32 (2007) Heft 2 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ The Acceptance of the Evils of Slavery as a Social Phenomenon: an Indicator of a Pro-Slavery Approach 1 Ulrich Pallua Sarah Scott’s The History of Sir George Ellison (1766), Henry Mackenzie’s Julia de Robigné (1777) and Charlotte Smith’s The Wanderings of Warwick (1794) all address the issue of slavery in the 18 th century. Placing the novels in the cultural and historical context, the paper will show that slavery was a central issue long before the abolition movement got under way in the late 1780s. It will prove that the conditions of the slaves reflected problems of rank and social position in 18 th -century English society. The portrayal of the enslaved black Africans and the arguments used to comment on the situation and treatment of the slaves in the colonies will show that the novels anticipate the central tenets of the promoters of the slave trade in the early 1790s. This is, the calling for an amelioration of the conditions of the slaves rather than an outright ban of the slave trade, since their emancipation would have been contrary to the development of an English nation that was striving for economic viability. Thus, the respective novels can be characterized as early exponents of pro-slavery currents of the second half of the 18 th century. When Sir George Ellison in Sarah Scott’s The History of Sir George Ellison (1766) decides to marry a widowed plantation owner from Jamaica, the narrator describes Ellison’s decision as follows: “The lady was agreeable, her fortune desirable […] yet he flattered himself that her merit, joined with her personal charms, must soon excite a strong affection in a heart naturally warm and tender.” (Scott 1996: 9) This statement reflects the attitude to- Ulrich Pallua 198 2 Interestingly enough, even though the slave trade as such is never explicitly mentioned in the three novels [except in The Wanderings of Warwick when the narrator mentions the slave merchant], the main issue in the second half of the eighteenth century is the enslaving of the Africans, which obviously refers to the trading with slaves. As a matter of fact, at that time slavery as such “[…] was not in decline; indeed was accepted to be of continuing economic importance to Britain.” (James Walvin, Slavery and the Slave Trade - A Short Illustrated History (London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press, 1983) 142. 3 The abolitionists had fought for the abolition of the slave trade and not for the abolition of slavery. “Wilberforce rejected the claim that they sought ‘the design of immediately emancipating the Slaves. Can it be necessary to declare, that the Abolitionists are full as much as any other man convinced, that insanity alone would dictate such a project.’” William Wilberforce, A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade (London, 1807), qtd. in James Walvin, England, Slaves and Freedom, 1776-1838 (Jackson and London: University Press of Mississippi, 1986) 124. The term slavery comprises the institution of slavery as a whole - even if slavery as such became an issue only after the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 - and also the enslavement of the black Africans, namely the slave trade. wards the enslavement of Africans 2 in the late 18 th century when the issue of slavery came to the fore. This paper shows how slavery 3 was introduced to the readers and how the authors in question raised the issue of enslaved black Africans in their novels. The novels to be discussed are Sarah Scott’s The History of Sir George Ellison (1766), Henry Mackenzie’s Julia de Robigné (1777) and Charlotte Smith’s The Wanderings of Warwick (1794). The novels have been chosen because they take a similar approach to the topic of slavery in the English colonies in the second half of the 18 th century covering a span of almost thirty years. The paper scrutinizes the fact that the issue of slavery is touched upon only marginally within the novels and that slavery as a topic was already covered before the abolition movement gained momentum in the 1780s. The fact that two out of three novels were written by female novelists is not particularly relevant for this paper as there are no significant differences in the way the three authors depicted the black African slaves. The paper claims that the novels under consideration can be regarded as pro-slavery novels as the various ‘recommendations’ to improve the slaves’ conditions - in The History of Sir George Ellison, Julia de Robigné, and The Wanderings of Warwick - did not aim at propagating abolitionist ideas but at an amelioration of the slaves’ conditions in order not to put the economic viability/ profitability of the colonies at risk. Similar - more precise and detailed - recommendations later re-emerge in the writings of promoters of the slave trade like William Knox, and Captain Macarty, who had edited proslave trade speeches in the House of Commons by James Baillie (MP for Horsham), Benjamin Vaughan (MP for Calne), Banastre Tarleton (MP for Liverpool), and Robert Banks Jenkinson (MP for Rye), reactions to “[…] William Wilberforce’s motion for the Abolition of the Slave Trade on 2 April 1792.” (Ryden 2003: 133) Interestingly enough, similar recommendations can ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 199 4 Thus, the text is included under the heading of Promoters of the Slave Trade. also be found, to a certain extent, in Edmund Burke’s ostensibly abolitionist Sketch of the Negro Code. The close resemblance of the novels to these writings substantiates the claim that the three novels take a pro-slavery stance in contrast to previous assertions, like the one by Eve W. Stoddard, who stated in her paper on Sarah Scott that “Scott’s specific proposals for the reform of slavery are among the earliest and the most progressive in the eighteenth century.” (Stoddard 1995: 383) The analysis of Knox’s, Macarty’s and Burke’s texts of the early 1790s will reveal that not only The History of Sir George Ellison but also Julia de Robigné and The Wanderings of Warwick were forerunners of pro-slave trade argumentation. Thus, the comparison of the novels with the texts of the promoters of the slave trade and with Burke’s anti-slave trade text - proving that Burke’s Sketch of the Negro Code essentially propagates the same as the promoters of the slave trade and can therefore be considered pro-slave trade 4 - will show that Sarah Scott, Henry Mackenzie, and Charlotte Smith’s novels were early pro-slavery texts. Promoters of the Slave Trade in the Early 1790s The promoters here discussed are a Planter from whom nothing is known except that he “[…] has from his Infancy been conversant in mercantile Affairs, as well as many Years resident in the Western Islands; ” (A Planter 2003/ 1789: 9) William Knox (1732-1810), “[…] a prolific pamphleteer […]”(Ryden 2003: 107) writing in defence of the slave trade in the colonies; and the four MPs James Baillie (1737-93), “[…] a colonial agent for Grenada in 1792,” (Ryden 2003: 133) Benjamin Vaughan (1751-1835), a Jamaicanborn planter, Banastre Tarleton (1754-1833), and Robert Banks Jenkinson (1770-1828). I also list Edmund Burke (1729-97) under the heading of promoters of the slave trade, because even though he supported William Wilberforce’s call for the total abolition of the slave trade in 1789, his Sketch of the Negro Code (1999/ 1792) argues along the same lines as the promoters’ texts, calling for a gradual abolition of the slave trade rather than an outright ban. The arguments presented by the three authors to raise doubts about the righteousness of slavery bear close resemblance to the arguments presented by supporters of the slave trade; this is to say that both parties call for an amelioration of the slaves’ conditions (and thus for a continuation of the slave trade) based on the religious/ moral argument - the abduction of the Africans saved them from their own sloth as they were considered inferior - and on the economic argument - that first it was untenable to abolish the Ulrich Pallua 200 slave trade as it would harm not only the planters’ but also England’s economy and, secondly, that the slaves were better off than the lower classes at home. To the question why slavery originated in the first place the Planter replies that the reason for their enslavement is the highest order from God and the abolition of the slave trade brings about misery and destruction to the mother country. To the moral objection “[…] how any one, alive to every Sentiment of Humanity, can encourage a Barter for Human Beings! ” (A Planter 2003/ 1789: 11), the Planter replies that the slave trade preserves millions from further relapsing into barbarity: “Hence it is evident, that it is better to be the Slaves of Christians, than the Victims of Heathen Ferocity.” (A Planter 2003/ 1789: 12, 13) The coming of the Europeans is interpreted as a benefit for the slaves, as they are provided with an education bringing them closer to the status of human beings and protecting them from their own degeneration. If the slave trade was abolished, other nations would take up the trade, harming not only British economy but also the slaves themselves as they would be sold to other nations whose methods are more barbarous than those of the English. As far as the living conditions and the punishment of people are concerned, the Planter draws parallels between the slaves in the colonies and the poor people in the mother country, […] why should we consider it so great a Crime, while our Martial Law encourages the Flogging the gallant Mariner, and the brave Soldier? […] How shall we then account for the extreme Sensibility so much alive to the Correction of the Negro, while we forget the Suffering of those brave Fellows […]. (A Planter 2003/ 1789: 27) The principle of the supposed inferiority of the slaves/ Africans and the consequent duty of the Europeans to civilize them is also sustained by William Knox. Calling the Africans “[…] wretched descendants of Ham,” he plays down the seriousness of the brutality towards the slaves: what are all the profits gained from the colonies compared “[…] to the single consideration of its injustice? ” (Knox 2003/ 1790: 113, 114) Since the Africans must have been created by God and are entitled to the same rights, it is “[…] surely the duty of all Christians, as states, societies, and individuals, to endeavour to instruct them in the knowledge and will of the Creator.” (Knox 1790: 115) This duty requires the Europeans not only “[…] to transport them [the slaves] out of their country,” (Knox 2003/ 1790: 116) but “[…] to counteract the natural inequality of men, an inequality which the Creator ordained, as it should seem, for the very purpose of forcing them into society, the condition for which they were created and adapted.” (Knox 2003/ 1790: 119) This leads inevitably to the subjection of the slaves, as man has the right to force an individual, to “exercise a power over him […].” (Knox 2003/ 1790: 119) As a result, the enslavement of the Africans saves them from being further op- ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 201 pressed by the African princes, who “[…] assume and exercise a still more despotic power over their subjects than did the feudal lords.” (Knox 2003/ 1790: 124) From an economic perspective the feeding and clothing of the slaves and the whole process of ameliorating the slaves’ conditions aims at generating profit. “Africans are not only the forced labour supply by which astronomical profits are reaped. They are also significant consumers of British goods in their own right […].”(Wheeler 2000: 224) The question pro-slave trade advocates raise is: what is so abominable about the condition of the slaves if the landlords in other European countries treat their subjects even worse? According to Knox, The difference […] between the free-born Englishman and the negro seems to be this, that the one is compelled to labour while he is able by the pinching of hunger, the shivering of cold, or the horrors of a gaol; and the other is forced to it when he is well fed and clothed, and in sound health, by the terrors of the cart whip. (Knox 2003/ 1790: 124) He concludes that “[…] we are bound as men and Christians, to assist them in removing out of it into one where their present and future happiness will be better provided for […] Their removal, therefore, is not under all circumstances to be prohibited.” (Knox 2003/ 1790: 126) In regard to the situation in England, Capt. Macarty, in his introduction to the speeches, raises the question as to whether only the planters are to be blamed for the continuance of the slave trading business and not “[…] the GOVERNMENT […] and […] the LEGISLATURE and the NATION, which have invariably sanctioned that trade for more than a century? ” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 142) Capt. Macarty cites James Baillie, who corroborates the fact that the slave trade and the deportation of Africans was sanctioned by the government and is therefore legal; the abolition of the slave trade, however, would certainly increase the risk of insurrections and rebellions resulting from the slaves’ discontentment with the newly acquired emancipation. Baillie contends that while the abolitionists claim that the cause of the African is one of humanitarian concern, they forget the fate of the planters (the injustice inflicted upon the British/ West Indian subjects). Thus, he goes on to question the moral principles the abolitionists use to demand the abolition of the slave trade - they should act in the interest not only of the state but also in the interest of individuals. Baillie states that “[…] the Negroes in the British West India Islands, to be in as COMFORTABLE A STATE; AS THE LOWER ORDERS OF MANKIND IN ANY COUNTRY IN EUROPE; ” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 171) this is to say that seamen and soldiers endure the same hardships, if not worse, than the slaves in the colonies. The abolition of the slave trade would have grave consequences for the people in England, as it would put in danger the pro- Ulrich Pallua 202 5 “The situation, also, of the Negroes was better than he could have supposed; for cloaths and fuel they have little want on account of the climate - they had a house and land gratis - they suffered no imprisonment for debt - no fear of not being able to support a family to deter them from marrying - their orphans and widows were sure to be taken care of - as likewise themselves, when old or meeting with accidents - they had medicines, surgery, midwifery, and attendance, gratis - they had their private property, which no master ever took from them […] they appeared as happy as any other poor, and had as many amusements of their own and as much cheerfulness.” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 197-8) sperity of the English nation, at the same time threatening the efficiency of one of the most important sea powers at the time. He concludes that the colonies are advantageous to Britain and therefore worth protecting and encouraging, “[…] necessary to the welfare and existence of the said Sugar colonies.” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 184) The complete abolition of the slave trade, according to Baillie, brings about destruction and loss to the mother country, the British subjects, in particular seamen, and thus cannot be approved of; “and those who are of a different opinion, I will ever consider as IGNORANT OF THE TRUE INTERESTS OF GREAT BRITAIN, AND ENE- MIES TO ITS WELFARE AND PROSPERITY.” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 194) In his speech on slavery Benjamin Vaughan justifies the continuance of the slave trade with the religious and moral enlightenment the slaves would receive from the planters. “Where RELIGION was once instilled, there would be less punishment - more work done - and better done - more marriages - more issue - and more attachment to their Masters and to the Government.” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 205) Moreover, the slaves are better treated than the lower classes in Britain, as the planters take special care of them. 5 As far as England and the colonies are concerned, also Vaughan argues that if the slave trade were to be abolished, it would greatly harm England’s economy. Banastre Tarleton maintains that with the abolition of the slave trade “[…] we undermine our present advantages, destroy our future expectations […].” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 236) He makes it very clear that abolishing the slave trade means disregarding the English constitution, “[…] if I was an enemy to the Constitution of England […] I would vote for the abolition of the African trade.” Why endanger the empire’s economy and well-being when “Through the medium of science, and the extension of labour and manufactures, we are enabled to penetrate into every country, to become the merchants of every state, and the citizens of every clime.” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 235) The abolition of the slave trade does not better the slaves’ conditions, as other countries would profit from England’s feeble-mindedness. On the contrary, it would first and foremost threaten the security of the white troops as they are faced with insurrections and rebellions. ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 203 6 “He again stated his abhorrence of the Slave-Trade; but as a resource, though he hoped but a temporary one, it was of such consequence to the existence of the country, that it should not suddenly be withdrawn.” (The Online Library of Liberty. “Thomas Clarkson, The History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade by the British Parliament, 1808.” <oll.libertyfund.org/ Home3/ Book.php? recordID=0591.02>) Robert Banks Jenkinson in his speech admits that enslaving human beings is an act of inhumanity but abolishing the slave trade would not greatly enhance the slaves’ situation as other nations would take over: “Do we regret the deaths, do we regret the cruelties that are said to have been committed? - Those deaths, and those cruelties would be more than doubled if we were to abolish the trade.” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 244) He even uses the slaves themselves to answer the question, ‘If other countries are not disposed to unite with you in abolishing it, for our sakes do you continue it; for whatever may be the evils we suffer from it, the trade carried on by other countries, when compared to the trade carried on by you, is as evil when compared to good.’ (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 245) Jenkinson draws the attention to the fact that the slaves have already been exposed to “peculiar disadvantages” (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 249) - hurricanes and resulting famines - and cruelties before they were captured and transported to the islands; the Europeans could therefore not add up to their misery. According to Jenkinson, The duty of a statesman was not to consider abstractly what was right or wrong, but to weigh the disadvantages that were likely to arise from the abolition of an evil, against the consequences that were likely to arise from the continuance of it. (Capt. Macarty 2003/ 1792: 260-1) In his Sketch of the Negro Code Edmund Burke is also of the opinion that the slave trade should be gradually abolished because an outright ban would have greater undulations than desired. 6 By a gradual abolition he hopes to extract at least some good from the business with human beings, namely the civilization of the Africans. It was my wish […] to take such measures as to civilize the coast of Africa by the trade, which now renders it more barbarous; and to lead by degrees to a more reputable, and, possibly, a more profitable, connexion with it, than we maintain at present. (Burke 1792: 172) This expected profit even justifies further expenses, “The Planter you must at once restrain and support; and you must control, at the same time that you ease, the servant […] It becomes in its nature complex. But I think neither the object impracticable, nor the expense intolerable.” (Burke 1792: 173-4) Even if Burke’s suggestions for the “[…] government of the Negroes, which are or shall be employed in His Majesty’s Colonies and Plantations in the West Ulrich Pallua 204 7 Burke suggests the following (cf. 1999/ 1792 if not otherwise stated): “Attorney General to be Protector of Negroes” (192) - inspectors are installed who control the districts/ twice a year a report of the condition of the slaves should be compiled - attorney is allowed to challenge the jury - ships arriving in the colonies are to be inspected by the attorney who is allowed to impose fines on a captain for maltreating the slaves or for not adhering to the rules - slaves are inspected and sold legally/ slaves with relatives, wife, children are not to be sold individually - division into districts, parishes - churches to be erected - “a Presbyter of the Church of England” (196) together with a clerk (African) is to instruct the slaves in religion/ baptize them unless they are Dissenters - overseer should hand in an annual list of those slaves who attend church - ten blows for everybody who misbehaves during service - no alcohol to be sold in the vicinity or one hour before and after Mass - list of marriages, births and burials - annual meetings of the parishes where regulations are decided upon - bishop is allowed to remove ministers - slaves who do well at school are to be bought and sent to London to improve their skills - attempt to raise marriage rate among slaves, even if he/ she has no partner - “adultery, unlawful concubinage, and fornication” (203) are to be punished - 3 days honeymoon - time off from work for pregnant women - married couples not to be sold separately - no work on Saturday afternoon and Sundays - married men to be allowed time off to spend time with their wives and children - slaves get huts and land/ after death possessions are to be bequeathed onto his wife and children - punishment for abusing slaves is not very strict - if any offence has been committed towards the slaves on behalf of the overseer, the slave is to be sold - slaves (younger than 30) should have the possibility to buy themselves free, as well as the master himself - idle free slaves convicted of a crime can be resold into slavery - report about such events to be sent to the secretary of state. Indies” (Burke 1792: 177) 7 are much more detailed than in the novels themselves, it is Burke’s final conclusion that does not differ significantly from what the novelists propose, even if The History of Sir George Ellison, Julia de Robigné, and The Wanderings of Warwick at first portray slavery as inhumane, irreligious, and immoral: “I am fully convinced, that the cause of humanity would be far more benefited by the continuance of the trade and servitude, regulated and reformed, than by the total destruction of both or either.” (Burke 1792: 174) Burke’s attitude towards the abolition of the slave trade makes the Sketch of the Negro Code a pro-slave trade text that calls for the continuance of the trade rather than for its termination. Sarah Scott: The History of Sir George Ellison (1766) When George Ellison marries a rich Jamaican widow who owns a large plantation, he is immediately described by the author as someone who […] was of a disposition to prosecute warmly and diligently every thing he undertook; therefore, as he entered into merchandize, he wished to pursue it in the most profitable manner, indifferent as to any inconveniences which might attend it. (Scott 1996: 6) The inconvenience the narrator speaks about is the fact that his wife owns a great number of slaves. Mr. Ellison is faced with the moral and ethical dilemma of making profit from the plantations by enslaving Africans. “Accord- ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 205 ing to the present state of the island he was sensible he could not abolish this slavery, even on his own estate, and saw no means of rendering happy the poor wretches, whose labours were to yield him affluence.” (Scott 1996: 10) His attitude towards enslaving people on account of a different complexion is made clear from the very beginning. The thing that had chiefly hurt him during his abode in Jamaica, was the cruelty exercised on one part of mankind; as if the difference of complexion excluded them from the human race, or indeed as if their not being human could be an excuse for making them wretched. Slavery was so abhorrent to his nature, and in his opinion so unjustly inflicted, that he had hitherto avoided the keeping any negroes. (Scott 1996: 10) Mr. Ellison, despite being opposed to the exploitation of human beings, is compelled not only to put up with the fact that he needs the slaves in order to gain profit but also that his wife, born and bred in Jamaica, “[…] had a reasonable share of compassion for a white man or woman, but had from her infancy been so accustomed to see the most shocking cruelties exercised on the blacks, that she could not conceive how one of that complexion could excite any pity.” (Scott 1996: 10) The indifference of the West Indians stems from their being used to inflicting pain on the slaves. Contrary to his wife, Ellison is convinced that ‘These poor creatures would be far our superiors in merit, and indeed in nature, if they could live without committing frequent faults […] I will endeavour to find a means of rendering our slaves obedient, without violating the laws of justice and humanity.’ (Scott 1996: 12) Mrs. Ellison’s callousness and indifference to the way her slaves are treated by the overseers is demonstrated by the episode with her favourite lap-dog breaking its leg. Being in tears over her dog’s pain she wonders why she should feel any compassion for the slaves. To Ellison’s statement “‘[…] but I confess I am surprised, though agreeably, to see such marks of sensibility in a heart that I feared was hardened against the sufferings even of her fellow creatures,’” (Scott 1996: 13) she only replies, “‘Sure, Mr. Ellison, you do not call negroes my fellow creatures? ’” (Scott 1996: 13) This incident proves the supposed inhumanity of the people born in the West Indies, in this particular case that of Mrs. Ellison. According to F.A. Nussbaum Mrs. Ellison exemplifies the special inhumanity of a plantation owner’s wife who is capable of perhaps greater cruelty than her husband […] Mrs. Ellison is the antithesis of the proper English lady: manly, emotionally controlling, weepy, a bad mother, and a racist. (Nussbaum 2003: 146) While Mrs. Ellison considers the slaves “[…] the most despicable part of the creation,” (Scott 1996: 13) Mr. Ellison declares that the supposed inferiority of the slaves is just a product of an ethnocentric attitude. Ulrich Pallua 206 8 “He erected a great number of cottages, and assigned to each family a comfortable habitation, with a little piece of ground adjoining, well stocked with vegetables, the future cultivation of which he left to themselves; at the same time providing them more plentiful and better subsistence than was usually allowed to any in their station. Two days in the week he permitted them to leave off work at an early hour in the afternoon; and promoted innocent amusements among them at those times; carefully preventing the sale of strong liquors, less mirth should lead to drunkenness. If the weather were peculiarly sultry, he would make them retire from work in the hottest part of the day, and always take care that they were supplied with wholesome liquor to refresh them. If any were sick, he immediately had all ‘When you and I are laid in the grave, our lowest black slave will be as great as we are; in the next world perhaps much greater; the present difference is merely adventitious, not natural […] I am exerting a power merely political, I have neither divine, nor natural right to enslave this man. This shocking subordination may be necessary in this country, but that necessity makes me hate the country.’ (Scott 1996: 13, 16) The assertion that they will be equal once dead, however, is just a flimsy argument serving as an excuse for the abominable conditions of the slaves and the justification of their enslavement. In fact, Mr. Ellison has recourse to the belief that even if the enslavement of the blacks is not naturally ordained by God, their lack of cultural development, their superstition and moral degeneracy make them inferior. Negroes are naturally faithful and affectionate, though on great provocation, their resentment is unbounded, and they will indulge their revenge though to their own certain destruction […] Their superstition inclined them to think him a deity, rather than a man; and in nothing did he find them less docile, than when he endeavoured to turn their love and admiration of him to his and their Maker. (Scott 1996: 17-8) Ellison is considered to be the hand of God leading the slaves to happiness and revelation by converting them to Christianity. He is characterized as “[…] their General Parent […] He shewed them plainly that he was but God’s steward.” (Scott 1996: 18) The inferiority of the slaves is further accentuated by the fact that he considers the slaves to be his children who have to be led to salvation. The act of denying the slaves their own freedom is counterbalanced by the attempt to educate the slaves with fatherly love. “He assured them, that he looked upon them all as his children, and promised no one should supply his place, that did not consider himself as their father.” (Scott 1996: 31) The blame is once again shifted onto the slaves as he is forced to subjugate them out of sheer necessity. He would not consider them his slaves except by “[…] ill behaviour they reduced him to the disagreeable necessity of exerting an absolute power over them. ‘While you perform your duty […] I shall look upon you as free servants, or rather like my children, for whose well-being I am anxious and watchful.’” (Scott 1996: 14) The act of ameliorating the situation of the slaves 8 gains him their affection; his wife, ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 207 proper relief applied; and by the encouragement he gave to such old women as nursed them well, secured them every comfort their condition could admit.” (Scott 1996: 14) however, is surprised at Ellison’s generosity and assures him that he is too lenient with such an “ungrateful creature.” [the African slave] (Scott 1996: 15) Leniency towards the slaves, however, guarantees Ellison more profit and at the same time obedient slaves. When Ellison reckons that “I cannot feel myself so superior to any of my fellow creatures, as to have a right of correcting them severely. I am determined therefore, for the future, to abolish all corporal punishments” (Scott 1996: 14), he rather stresses than weakens their inferiority by hinting at the fact that it is just for the planters’ good to make them obedient. Quite interestingly, this love generates not only more profit for the planter but also improves the slaves’ intelligence and readiness to think “[…] in comparison of those who are stupefied by ill usage and oppression.” (Scott 1996: 34) This trend not only means the spiritual enlightenment of the slaves but at the same time poses a threat to the integrity of the planter. According to Ferguson, Africans no longer act as happy or noble natives capering in a state of nature; they nurture a ‘savage’ or primitive inner core, a quasi-consciousness. This new status for the colonial other is a serious affair because British lives are at stake […] slaves might act as loyally as children, but beneath their goodhumored surface lies an untamed barbarism, always ready to strike. (Ferguson 1992: 104) The threat the English are confronted with is the conversion of the slaves, as they are “[…] much better acquainted with the fundamental principles of that religion, than people of low condition are in most Christian countries.” (Scott 1996: 36) The humanity with which Ellison treats his slaves is part of the duties Providence has imposed on him, as it is the happiness of others people should benefit most from. “‘I therefore think myself obliged to spend the greatest part of my fortune in relieving the necessitous, in providing for the good of their souls, and the ease of their bodies,’” (Scott 1996: 84) as the difference between the captive slave and the free Englishman […] lies only in education; you have been bred in a country, where scarcity of natural inhabitants introduced slavery, which can never be established but at the expense of humanity […] I, on the contrary, was born in a country, that with all its faults is conspicuously generous, frank, and merciful, because it is free; no subordination exists there, but what is for the benefit of the lower as well as the higher ranks; all live in a state of reciprocal services, the great and the poor are linked in compact; each side has its obligations to perform; and if I make use of another man’s labour, it is on condition that I shall pay him a price for it, as will enable him to purchase all the comforts of life; and whenever he finds it eligible to change his master, he is as free as I am.’ (Scott 1996: 16-7) Ulrich Pallua 208 The legacy George Ellison leaves to his slaves is the belief in the benefit of work being the basis for happiness. He leaves “[…] a spur to their industry,” and decides to give them “the power (as he enfranchised them) of chusing their own master […].” (Scott 1996: 138) Ellison contends that his slaves should have the liberty to choose their own master as “[…] it would not be so severely felt by those accustomed to it, as by such as had been till then used with gentleness and lenity.” (Scott 1996: 138) The idea that those habituated to bad treatment would suffer less from it than those already treated with benevolence stands in marked contrast to his condemning the people in Jamaica who are used to maltreating their own slaves. Towards the end of the novel Ellison expresses his attitude towards the slaves as far as their position in society is concerned. First, he maintains that “[…] though he promoted their marrying, he did not wish a union between those of different complexions, the connection appearing delicate and almost unnatural.” (Scott 1996: 139) Even though he supports the education and the moral and spiritual enlightenment of the slaves, he is still incapable of considering them equal. “[…] Ellison’s approval of color-segregated couples appears contradictory, given his protestations about slaves being fellow creatures and about skin color being incidental, especially since his black servants are recently converted Christians.” (Wheeler 2000: 147) Secondly, when it comes to the education of the planters’ children, they should be sent to England for a higher education, since schools in the colonies are only suitable for those who have been born inferior. There was then no tolerable school in the whole island of Jamaica, except those he had instituted for his slaves, and they were of a sort too low for the heirs to large fortunes, who ought to learn more languages than their own, and not confine their knowledge to the narrow bounds which suit those born to a servile state. (Scott 1996: 169) Even if his son was sent to the metropolis to be educated, and even if he considered England to be the haven of equality and humanity, Ellison leaves his son a considerable sum of money to buy more slaves, an act that is in stark contrast to what he advocates throughout the whole book. Even though Scott deals with the issue of slavery in The History of Sir George Ellison, it comes across as something that had to be touched upon, as a side effect of the problems of English society. The moment the focus is shifted to the poor in England, the situation of the slaves in the colonies becomes relevant, sometimes just to illustrate that the poor people at home are treated even worse than the slaves. Even though the second chapter “[…] promotes a rational and achievable approach to plantation life which planters could be encouraged to follow,” (Carey 2005: 53) it does not promote the emancipation of the slaves. Moreover, it is not true that the amelioration of the slaves’ conditions targets at abolishing slavery, as Ellison per- ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 209 9 Page numbers according to electronic printout. fectly knows that his wealth depends on slaves. He denounces slavery as abhorrent to human nature and improves the slaves’ conditions like a benevolent planter, but never fails to remind them of their duty, “‘While you perform your duty […] I shall look upon you as free servants […].” (Scott 1996: 14) Even if they are ‘free,’ they are not free to choose their master, as his way of treating them is unique. Besides, they are still compelled to work, otherwise they would be of no use to Ellison. I agree with Nussbaum’s contention that The novel encourages the kind treatment and education of slaves, but one can claim that the novel is abolitionist only by understating the hero’s economic collusion and ignoring the way that his charitable impulses rely upon the spoils of slavery for funding. (Nussbaum 2003: 143) Also, Ellis Markman comments: He [Ellison] denounces slavery simply because slavery is abhorrent to him […] he is even by his own admission not an abolitionist, because he is unable (or unwilling) to dispute the hegemony of the ‘present state of the island’, because ‘his affairs could not go without them [the slaves]’. Instead he sets out to palliate and ameliorate slavery. (Ellis 1996: 91) Ameliorating the slaves’ conditions, however, cannot be considered abolitionist, but rather pro-slavery, as the story oscillates between a confirmation of the ideology of slavery and a light-hearted accusation of inhumane treatment of the slaves levelled against the West Indian planters. The problem with this accusation is that Ellison’s approach to the whole problem is not at all convincing because of the underlying aim of exploiting the slaves for personal profit. And this economic dimension/ entanglement does not lead to the abolition of slavery but, quite contrarily, to the continuation of the slaves’ treatment as inferior beings. Henry Mackenzie: Julia de Roubigné (1777) In Mackenzie’s Julia de Roubigné there is a short passage (chapter XXVIII) that deals with the issue of slavery; the story is set in Martinique and the discussion opens with Savillon generalizing about the subject of slavery, “In one I have been successful beyond expectation; and in that one I was the most deeply interested, because it touches the cause of humanity.” (Mackenzie 1777: 44) 9 This generalization makes sure the reader recognizes slavery as an ethical issue that raises the question of its humanity and legality. Savillon purchases a slave called Yambu, and it is to him that Savillon introduces his new system of slavery, namely a state of dependency based on trust and hard labour. But before he can present his ameliorated system, Ulrich Pallua 210 10 This reverence for the ‘leader figures’ among the African natives covers several centuries from Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko/ Caesar in Oroonoko to Daniel DeFoe’s Friday in Robinson Crusoe to H. Rider Haggard’s Ignosi/ Umbopa in King Solomon’s Mines to John Buchan’s John Laputa in Prester John. he has to ascertain that it is the Africans themselves who enslave their fellow countrymen and sell them to the slave traders, instigating the abominable trade: “[…] they had been taken prisoners when fighting in his cause, by another prince, who, in one battle, was more fortunate than theirs; that he had sold them to some white men, who came, in a great ship, to their coast.” (Mackenzie 1777: 40) This attempt at shifting the blame for the enslavement onto the Africans is a clear indication of their inferiority and lack of cultural development. Savillon sets in motion his new system of slavery by telling Yambu, “‘I cannot give you back your country, Yambu; but I can make this one better for you.’” (Mackenzie 1777: 41) At the same time Savillon makes clear that even though the slaves’ conditions are ameliorated, it nevertheless entails working hard, “‘[…] else we shall have no sugars to buy them meat and clothing with.’” (Mackenzie 1777: 41) This newly developed scheme is not an improvement of any kind but just a way to trick the slaves into believing that they are treated with respect; instead, they are being exploited in order to gain profit and to avoid friction. As soon as Yambu realizes that this master will eventually improve the atrocious conditions of the slaves, he “[…] fell at my [Savillon’s] feet, and kissed them: Yambu stood silent, and I saw a tear on his cheek. ‘This man has been a prince in Africa! ’ said I to myself.” (Mackenzie 1777: 41) The fact that Savillon recognizes Yambu as a prince, a nobler creature among the Africans, who is able to reason and is therefore eligible to communicate with the European, shows that on closer examination some African slaves could eventually be considered quasi-equal, even if he just refers to ‘leader figures.’ 10 “One who had inquired no further, would have concluded him possessed of that stupid insensibility, which Europeans often mention as an apology for their cruelties.” (Mackenzie 1777: 41) Savillon distances himself from the rest of the Europeans, who seem to be incapable of realizing that slavery as a system could be operated more profitably by treating the slaves more favourably. I have had the satisfaction of observing those men, under the feeling of good treatment, and the idea of liberty, do more than almost double their number subject to the whip of an overseer. I am under no apprehension of desertion or mutiny; they work with the willingness of freedom, yet are mine with more than the obligation of slavery. (Mackenzie 1777: 42) [my emphasis] It is true that “Savillon’s psychological control over the slaves seems chilling, while his reaffirmation of plantation property rights (‘are mine’) in fact ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 211 strengthens than rather ameliorates the slaves’ position as chattel,” (Carey 2005: 65) but the slaves are not only seen as the slave owner’s property but are naturally used as an economic incentive: by ameliorating their conditions - the present state of slavery is unprofitable, not only unhealthy for the merchants, the whole nation and its subjects, but also to the slaves themselves. I have often been tempted to doubt whether there is not an error in the whole plan of negro servitude, and whether whites, or creoles born in the West Indies, or perhaps cattle, after the manner of European husbandry, would not do the business better and cheaper than the slaves do. The money which the latter cost at first, the sickness (often owing to despondency of mind) to which they are liable after their arrival, and the proportion that die in consequence of it make the machine, if it may be so called, of a plantation extremely expensive in its operations. In the list of slaves belonging to a wealthy planter, it would astonish you to see the number unfit for service, pining under disease, a burden on their master. I am talking only as a merchant. (Mackenzie 1777: 42) [my emphasis] Thus, the fact that slaves on the plantations are quite expensive - similar to what Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations in 1776, “The experience of all ages and nations, I believe, demonstrates that the work done by slaves, though it appears to cost only their maintenance, is in the end the dearest of any” (Smith 1998: 238) - does not lead to the abolition of the abominable trade of human beings but to the conviction that the amelioration of the slaves’ conditions naturally entails the viability of the slave trade. Savillon’s argumentation now shifts from the economic to the humanitarian/ religious perspective: […] but as a man good Heavens! When I think of the many thousands of my fellow-creatures groaning under servitude and misery! Great God! Hast thou peopled those regions of thy world for the purpose of casting out their inhabitants to chains and torture? No; thou gavest them a land teeming with good things, and lighted’st up thy sun to bring forth spontaneous plenty; but the refinements of man, ever at war with thy works, have changed this scene of profusion and luxuriance, into a theatre of rapine, of slavery, and of murder! (Mackenzie 1777: 42) [my emphasis] The fact that Savillon calls the slaves his “fellow creatures” stands in marked contrast to his thesis of God’s creation of the earth. A closer look at the passage raises the question who these “inhabitants” of the earth are. It seems as if Savillon refers to humanity as a whole, including the dark complected people as well. In this case he puts the slave on a level with the white European; as a result, it is not just the destructiveness of the slave trader/ colonizer but also the arrested development of the slaves that has turned human existence into hell on earth. Nevertheless, this religious bout does not succeed in diverting attention from the fact that the economic Ulrich Pallua 212 argument is somehow stronger, since the fate of not only the planters is at stake, but also that of the mother country and its subjects. What comes as a surprise, however, is the introduction, although brief [in chapter XXIX], of “Herbert, an Englishman, a merchant in one of the British West-India islands,” (Mackenzie 1777: 43) whom Savillon describes as “[…] a worthy and amiable man,” having “[…] a delicacy and fineness of sentiment, which something beyond the education of a trader must have inspired […] I perceived a tincture of melancholy enthusiasm in his mind […].” (Mackenzie 1777: 43) Herbert seems to be the personification of the qualities of the ‘man’ Savillon was talking about when referring to the enslavement of the Africans, and to whom Savillon attributes qualities of humanity and morality. Thus, the dichotomy of the Frenchman and the Englishman in this context - the former being the merchant craving for profit, the latter being a man of reason fighting for the amelioration of the slaves’ conditions - does not only show that the French and the people living in the West Indies in general, be they French, English, or from any other nation, are corrupted by habit and profit, but that the Britons living at home are the ‘nation’ that cares most about the slaves since they have developed a natural sense of justice. The polarity between people living in or outside Great Britain (including other nations) is explained by reference to how such a system came into existence in the first place. “Habit, the tyrant of nature and of reason, is deaf to the voice of either; here she stifles humanity, and debases the species for the master of slaves has seldom the soul of man […] from his infancy he is made callous to those feelings, which soften at once and ennoble our nature.” (Mackenzie 1777: 42) According to Savillon, the consciousness of the slaves’ agony should prevent the planters from turning the earth into a scene of violence and murder since it is their brothers and sisters who are exploited in the name of economy. We think seldom of those things which habit has made common, otherwise we should correct many of them; there needed only to give one’s feelings room on this theme, and they could prompt no other conduct than mine […] the best of our resolutions are bettered, by a consciousness of the suffrage of good men in their favour; and the reward is still higher, when that suffrage is from those we love. (Mackenzie 1777: 46) The discrepancy between seeing the slaves as “those we love” and as ‘free’ people possessed by the planter speaks volumes about Savillon’s argumentation against slavery. Savillon in Julia de Robigné in fact propagates the idea of amelioration but not without having the profit of the plantations at the back of his mind. I agree with Markman Ellis’s statement that “Savillon hopes to mitigate the violence of the slave system and improve the social conditions of the work force,” but not with the contention that this is done without “[…] challenging the fundamental status of slavery.” (Ellis 1996: 120) As uncon- ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 213 vincing as Savillon’s sudden compassion for his “fellow creatures” is, he indeed challenges the status of slavery by raising them on a higher evolutionary level. Nevertheless, emancipation is an act that requires the willingness to accept the African slaves as equal, something Savillon is still very far away from, not only from an intellectual and moral but also from a religious standpoint. Charlotte Smith: The Wanderings of Warwick (1794) The issue of slavery is touched upon in chapter II and III; the story is set in Barbados, where Warwick is faced with the brutality of slavery on the plantations in the West Indies. The book was written at a time when William Wilberforce’s struggle against the slave trade was gaining momentum. Warwick issues a very clear statement about his attitude towards slavery: “‘[…] I had an opportunity of observing the state of the negro-slaves, whom I often considered as being in a condition which reflected disgrace on humanity,’” (Smith 1992: 44) stressing the fact that even someone who had only been craving for a fashionable life, could describe the ‘real’ situation of the slaves in the colonies. With his next assertion Warwick corroborates the belief that the people dwelling in the West Indies, being habituated to the enslaving of Africans, have already been corrupted by being exposed to a ‘West Indianness’: A number of beings condemned to perpetual slavery, beings who seem called into existence only to suffer, is an idea revolting not only to the mind of every Englishman, but to every European in whom habit does not blunt the power of reflection. (Smith 1992: 45) All of a sudden, he eases his position on slavery by adding, “I will own to you, however, that the subject seen nearer loses some of its horror; though too many remain, and ever must remain, while slavery exists.” (Smith 1992: 45) This is a clear indication of the argumentation to follow as Warwick is in favour of ameliorating the system of slavery rather than abolishing it. It seems as if Warwick desperately tries to emphasize that the way the slaves are treated on the plantations is contrary to human nature because they can be considered to be human beings. “When I considered that these were creatures endued with a portion, and, as some have contended, an equal portion, of that reason on which we so highly value ourselves, I turned with horror and indignation from such a spectacle.” (Smith 1992: 45) [my emphasis] But at once he informs the reader that even though the conditions of the slaves offend him, he has got used to it, “Gradually I became habituated to the sight, yet it still disgusted and distressed me.” (Smith 1992: 45) [my emphasis] Warwick’s horror at the appalling conditions of the slaves is Ulrich Pallua 214 counterbalanced by the contention that it is not the British but the West Indians or the Americans who mistreat the slaves as a result of being used to enslaving and dehumanizing them, “[…] for the continental Americans, like those of the West Indies, consider such things as mere matters of course - though it is said that they are less severe in their treatment of that unhappy race of people.” (Smith 1992: 56) This claim is rebutted by an earlier statement when Warwick recounts how his friend Jack observed his mistress Miss Shaftesbury [Marianne] whipping a little black girl; he draws the attention to the difference between Miss Shaftesbury “[…] whom I have seen weep over the fictitious distresses of a novel […]”(Smith 1992: 53), and her beating a slave girl almost to death. This incident proves to the reader that there is a crucial chasm between how the slaves are treated by the West Indians, who were “[…] in every other instance reasonable and humane” - Warwick even realizes that “[…] without such wholesome severity masters [in the West Indies] would not be able to keep their slaves in subjection” (Smith 1992: 46) - and by the English. Nevertheless, even in England, “[…] that land, the inhabitants of which pique themselves, and not without reason, on being distinguished for the most liberal humanity among the nations of the civilised world,” (Smith 1992: 57) people become accustomed to violence and poverty. Warwick uses the aforementioned habit, according to which people don’t seem to be alarmed by the utmost barbarities towards the slaves in the West Indies, to justify his own failure to notice the violence in the streets of London. Still, the people living in the West Indies “[…] find nothing extraordinary in being surrounded by another race of man destined to be their slaves, and are only amazed that the European should suppose these men liable to the same sensations as himself, and should feel interested for the happiness of beings so inferior” (Smith 1992: 58-9) as “[…] perhaps in no part of the Christian world are appearances of morality so little attended to as in the West India islands.” (Smith 1992: 62) Talking about the cruelties of slavery in the West Indies, Warwick has recourse to the economic argument used by most pro-slave trade writers, The slave merchant studies nothing but his profit and loss; and if at any time something like a qualm of conscience should disturb the felicity he finds in acquiring wealth, he reconciles himself to his pursuit with reflecting, that if he did not drive this trade somebody else would - an argument which I have often heard used to justify every folly and every vice. (Smith 1992: 59) While Warwick condemns the arguments used by the pro-slave trade lobby, he is trying to shift the blame onto the slaves. On the one hand, he accuses the West Indians of racial violence towards slaves but on the other, he mitigates the problem that the people in the West Indies are accustomed to their own barbarity with which they treat slaves by reckoning that the planters in Barbados take particular care of them: ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 215 […] that in general they are not ill-treated […] and if there are some masters whose malignant disposition even avarice cannot controul, there are others whose humanity is not lessened even by the perverse and savage tempers of some of those unhappy beings who are their property. (Smith 1992: 60) [my emphasis] Despite the fact that the planters treat the slaves humanely, they still consider them to be brutes. This is Warwick’s transition from pitying the slaves because they are subjected to the brutality and violence of the planters to them being inferior and thus responsible for their own enslavement. Moreover, those already born slaves are destined to work for the white master as are the peasants back home in England. Warwick even goes as far as to state that since the slaves are their master’s property, they even take particular interest in their master’s welfare. But it seems as if the general lot of this unfortunate race was more tolerable than we are led to suppose from a transient view of their situation: those who are born upon the estates they cultivate, having never any other idea than that of being destined to that labour which they behold going forward around them, are no more discontented with their lot than the peasants in Europe. (Smith 1992: 60-1) By comparing the situation of the black Africans in the colonies to the poor in England, Warwick comes to the conclusion that also the English peasants are “[…] driven to labour-not indeed with stripes, but by the terrors of a gaol.” (Smith 1992: 64) The peasant is forced to flee and become a soldier, being “[…] in reality as great a slave as the African - at least for the term of years for which he has engaged himself.” (Smith 1992: 64) The Englishman, when quitting his service, is forced to live in a workhouse under harsh conditions in comparison to the situation of the aging slaves. The slaves are provided with all the necessities of life, they are cared for, they have their own little huts, they are supported by their women, and they are even allowed to rear their children and to teach other slaves. Here Warwick resorts to the arguments of the apologists of the slave trade by contending that the slave “[…] has many little indulgences to sweeten this last period of existence […].” (Smith 1992: 65) [my emphasis] After Warwick has substantiated that the slaves in the colonies are destined to be enslaved by the planters and that the conditions under which they live are not as appalling as it seems - “[…] dreadful as the condition of slavery is, the picture of its horrors is often overcharged” (Smith 1992: 65) - he takes another sharp turn and speaks out against slavery: “[…] let me protest my belief that its brutalities, while it degrades, the human character, and produces at once servility and ferocity.” (Smith 1992: 66) This “servility and ferocity” - the violence and the inhumanity of slavery - is used by Warwick to prove the Africans’ readiness to treat their fellow creatures more Ulrich Pallua 216 11 On March 31 st 1806, however, when a bill was presented to the House of Commons by Sir A. Pigott, Thomas Clarkson states that “Mr. Windham deprecated not only the Slave-Trade, but slavery also. They were essentially connected with each other. They were both evils, and ought both of them to be done away.” (The Online Library of Liberty. “Thomas Clarkson, cruelly than the white planters would ever dare to. Once again the blame lies with the slaves as Warwick theorizes that the people who have been treated badly in their infancy will treat their servants/ slaves/ subjects even more severely: It has been received as a maxim, that human nature is everywhere the same; and if these observations are just, it is exemplified in remarking, that such of the negroes as are entrusted with any degree of authority over their unhappy countrymen, exercise that authority with infinitely more rigour than the white superintendents. (Smith 1992: 68) The primary aim of this episode - the whipping of the little black girl - and the book as a whole is not to remind the reader of the brutality of slavery but rather to blame not only the Africans, but also the people in the West Indies for this pernicious business, confirming the hypothesis that the farther away from England the people live the more liable they are to violence and indifference. Interestingly enough, Charlotte Smith excels at developing an idea - for instance when Warwick expresses his disgust at slavery and immediately attributes the indifference to such violence to habit - and rejecting it again by deconstructing it: if the West Indians are considered cruel, there are also good people among them; if the slaves have to live under abominable conditions, they are always better off than the poor in England; and if the treatment of the slaves can be considered cruel, the slaves are even more cruel than the white superintendents. This apologetic behaviour reflects the vacillation between condemning slavery and excusing it by putting the blame on the Africans themselves rather than taking on the responsibility for enslaving human beings. Conclusion The History of Sir George Ellison, Julia de Robigné, and The Wanderings of Warwick anticipate the ideas of the promoters of the slave trade in the early 1790s - calling for an amelioration of the slaves’ conditions rather than their emancipation - by suggesting that their manumission is, after all, quite contrary to the development of the English nation striving for the maintenance of the economic viability of slavery as its abolition would cause bigger undulations than its continuation under improved conditions. Thus, the novels can be categorized as pro-slavery novels that influenced the writings of the promoters of the slave trade. 11 ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 217 The History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade by the British Parliament, 1808.” <oll.libertyfund.org/ Home3/ Book. php? recordID=0591.02>) The focus of attention lies on the problems of 18 th century English society, and the conditions of the slaves in the colonies are a reflection of what was going on at home. The comparison with the poor peasantry in England is ample proof of that. The main issue of eighteenth-century society is difference in social rank. Even if each of the three characters in the novels, George Ellison, Savillon and Warwick allude to the fact that slavery is considered an abominable business enslaving the poor Africans, they never forget to place special emphasis on the fact that the position in society still separates the European from the African. “Social rank becomes the obfuscating mask to maintain difference and to assume an inferiority specified as ‘blackness’ and ‘savagery,’ but within humanity.” (Nussbaum 2003: 145) The colouring corroborates this tendency as it is […] a physical mark of the national character that makes whiteness emerge as part of Britain’s imperial identity […] it increasingly becomes a legible measure of beauty or ugliness, national character, health, social rank, economic and moral worth […]. (Nussbaum 2003: 150) Moreover, social rank always goes along with materialism and economy. It is neither the spiritual enlightenment of the slaves nor their moral or religious education - as it would have threatened the superiority of the English - the colonizers/ plantation owners are mostly interested in, but the profitability of the slaves; “[…] the unstated subtextual monster is profit, cornerstone of the rising and predacious capitalist-colonialist economy,” (Ferguson 1992: 104) the dead albatross [profit-making business] hanging around the plantation owner’s neck. The cruelty of enslaving fellow creatures is attributed to the West Indians, as their morals have been corrupted by living far away from home - in this case England which is seen as the abode of freedom and humanity. The juxtaposition of Mr. Ellison with Mrs. Ellison, the metropolis with the periphery, and Britishness with non-Britishness reveals that those not dwelling in England are already estranged from the basic idea of liberty, a quality the British prided themselves of possessing. Moreover, the enslaved Africans are saved from their barbaric fellow countrymen as they wage wars against each other and sell the captive slaves to white traders. The comparison of the situation of the English peasantry with that of the slaves in the colonies attempts to prove that the slaves live under much better conditions than the poor at home. Since the West Indians are used to the bad treatment of the slaves on the plantations, and the economy of the country as well as the lot of the planters cannot be put at risk, the novels Ulrich Pallua 218 serve as an incitement to ameliorate the condition of the underprivileged people within society - the slaves on the plantations happen to be part of that ‘class’ - and not to abolish the enslavement of Africans. Amelioration was considered […] the optimum solution to slavery, the only one that could resolve gnawing contradictions about human freedom and material profit […] Amelioration was no threat to mercantilist values and profiteering […] Rising profits kept abolition at bay. (Stoddard 1995: 100, 107) Thus, the fatherly love of the planter towards the slaves should solve the problems of the slaves as “Gentle usage renders the slave not only more faithful, but more intelligent, and therefore, upon a double account, more useful.” (Smith 1998: 349) That brings us back to the title of this paper, namely that ‘slavery was agreeable, its fortune desirable; ’ it perfectly reflects what the three authors propagated in their novels: the evil of slavery is part of the arising societal development in Great Britain and is thus accepted as a social phenomenon. The wish (of the characters in the novels) to change the present situation of the slaves is insufficient to the extent that it does not entail the emancipation of the slaves. On the contrary, the economy of the motherland and the colonies were too precious to be put at risk; thus, the amelioration of the slaves’ conditions exactly brought about what the plantation owners in the West Indies and the English were craving for: more profit. This is precisely what the narrator says of his and Mrs. Ellison’s future, “[…] her merit, joined with her personal charms, must soon excite a strong affection in a heart naturally warm and tender.” (Scott 1996: 9) Just as Mrs. Ellison did not succeed in deeply touching Ellison’s heart, the cruel fate of the slaves was doomed to be overshadowed by the striving for profit. Therefore, the light-hearted condemnation of slavery and its ensuing justification on grounds of economic viability make the respective novels early exponents of proslavery currents of the second half of the 18 th century. References A Planter (2003/ originally 1789). “Commercial Reasons for the Non-Abolition of the Slave Trade, in the West-India Islands by a Planter and Merchant of many Years Residence in the West-Indies (London, W. Lane, 1789).” In: David Ryden (ed). The British Transatlantic Slave Trade. Vol. 4. London: Pickering and Chatto. 1-28. Burke, Edmund (1999/ originally 1792). “Sketch of a Negro Code (1792).” In: Peter J. Kitson (ed). Slavery, Abolition and Emancipation: Writings in the British Romantic Period. Vol. 2. London: Pickering and Chatto. 167-208. Capt. Macarty (2003/ originally 1792). “An Appeal to the Candour and Justice of the People of England in Behalf of the West India Merchants and Planters founded on Plain Facts and Incontrovertible Arguments (London, 1792).” In: David Ryden (ed). The British Transatlantic Slave Trade. Vol. 4. London: Pickering and Chatto. 133-268. ‘Slavery was Agreeable, its Fortune Desirable’ 219 Carey, Brycchan (2005). British Abolitionism and the Rhetoric of Sensibility: Writing, Sentiment, and Slavery, 1760-1807. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Ellis, Markman (1996). The Politics of Sensibility: Race, Gender and Commerce in the Sentimental Novel. Cambridge: CUP. Ferguson, Moira (1992). Subject to Others. British Women Writers and Colonial Slavery, 1670-1834. London: Routledge. Knox, William (2003/ originally 1790). “A Letter from W.K. Esq. to W. Wilberforce, Esq. (London, J. Debrett, 1790).” In: David Ryden (ed). The British Transatlantic Slave Trade. Vol. 4. London: Pickering and Chatto. 107-132. Mackenzie, Henry (1777). Julia de Roubigné. <http: / / www.blackmask.com> [accessed 2 Feb. 2006]. Nussbaum, Felicity A. (2003). The Limits of the Human, Fictions of Anomaly, Race, and Gender in the Long Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: CUP. Ryden. David (2003). Foreword. “An Appeal to the Candour and Justice of the People of England in Behalf of the West India Merchants and Planters founded on Plain Facts and Incontrovertible Arguments (London, 1792).” By Capt. Macarty. In: David Ryden (ed). The British Transatlantic Slave Trade. Vol. 4. London: Pickering and Chatto. 133-134. - (2003). Foreword. “A Letter from W.K. Esq. to W. Wilberforce, Esq. (London, J. Debrett, 1790).” By William Knox. The British Transatlantic Slave Trade. In: David Ryden (ed). The British Transatlantic Slave Trade. Vol. 4. London: Pickering and Chatto. 107-108. Scott, Sarah (1996/ originally 1766). The History of Sir George Ellison. Ed. Betty Rizzo. Lexington: Kentucky UP. Smith, Adam (1998/ originally 1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Oxford: OUP. Smith, Charlotte (1992/ originally 1794). The Wanderings of Warwick. London: Routledge/ Thoemmes Press. Stoddard, Eve W. (1995). “A Serious Proposal for Slavery Reform: Sarah Scott’s Sir George Ellison.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 28. 379-396. Wheeler, Roxann (2000). The Complexion of Race. Categories of Difference in Eighteenth- Century British Culture. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania UP. Ulrich Pallua Institut für Anglistik Leopold-Franzens-Univ. Innsbruck