] So sorry, -I still do not believe Sir Thomas was a bad man because he owned a plantation. I can think of other reasons to call hm a bad man, but they are not relevant here.

Actually, I agree with you - at least for the most part I do. Until I started doing this research, I thought that the Antigua references in MP were so tenuous a 'slavery' link as to be hardly worth mentioning. I must say that my research has altered my views somewhat, but I still consider Sir Thomas to be a well-meaning if misguided Biblical partiarch - the very opposite of a bad man by any definition I recognise.

The problem is that what I've recently discovered about the use of slave labour in Antigua doesn't fit in with my image of Sir Thomas as a kindly patriarch at all. However, rather than this making me alter my opinion of Sir Thomas, I intend instead - in true 'ostrich' fashion - to sweep my findings under a metaphorical carpet. Henceforth, I shall ignore any mention of Sir Thomas and Antigua as one of those irritating anomolies that just won't fit into my reading of the character in any satisfactory way.

] And I'll still get infuriated by the fact that some people (and I'm really not pointing fingers here, really, becasue it's not one person, it's many ) use the fact of the barest breath of slavery in MP and Emma to start a "conversation" which invariably ends up with somebody accusing another of doubtful morality, inadequate religiosity, or whatever.

I can understand your frustration if those sort of accusations have been made in the past - but as I hope you know, I am not taking that tack at all. As I said earlier, I suspect that Austen took a much more pragmatic attitude to slavery. 'It was horrid to be sure, but luckily she knew none of the people invoved.' That sort of thing. And I base that on her wry comments about the number of young men dying in the war and how blessed she was that she knew none of them.

Here's another possibile explanation for her not specifically commenting on the slavery issue. There's a HUGE article one of my Regency 'Gentleman's Magazine's' whose author argues, not that slavery is acceptable, but that there are far worse horrors that need mending at home before the social ills of those living in foreign lands shoud be addressed. The author paints some graphic instances of impoverished Britons living in desperately squalid conditions which (he says) equal those of the most benighted slave - and he challenges abolitionists to justify their zeal to free those in a foreign land, when there are so many evils in England that need redresssing first. I can imagine Austen accepting that point of view too - although I can't justify my reasons in any way - so please don't ask how!

] We have actually got some more information out of this, which is good. I'd like to thank Dee and (belatedly ) Linden for doing what I originally asked and digging up a few more hard facts.And Linden, I'll try to find my usually reasonable self again, I promise. It got lost in dealing with another part of Pemberley last week.;-)

Thank you for the thanks...if you see what I mean! But as you can tell, doing 'research' is rather an obsession of mine, so I've loved doing it. Any reason to buy more old books, gets my vote.

As for your problems in another part of Pemberley, I think I know whereof you speak, and I pity you from the bottom of my heart. I seem to have inadvertently added fuel to that fire too -but it really was unintentional, honest! And now I'll have done until that pamphlet arrives. (Insubordination in Antigua) It's due tomorrow or the next day, and you must allow me to post a bit from it, if it seems relevant. Pretty please! Even though I suspect that this thread is getting a wee bit too long for comfort, as only the three of us are now taking part.