The Rushworths ofWimpole StreetLAURIE KAPLANLaurie Kaplan, Professor of English and AcademicDirector of George Washington University’s EnglandCenter, has published essays on the London settings inJane Austen’s novels (Brunswick Square [Emma] andMayfair [Sense and Sensibility]). She has also published essays on women in World War I, Paul Scott,and Tom Stoppard.“But Mrs. Rushworth’s day of good looks will come; we have cardsfor her first party on the 28th.—Then she will be in beauty, for shewill open one of the best houses in Wimpole Street. I was in it twoyears ago, when it was Lady Lascelles’s, and prefer it to almost anyI know in London . . . .” (MP 456)T M C reports to Fanny how the newly married Rushworths will open their first—and last—London season. Mrs. Rushworth’sfirst party will fit into the web of flirting, gambling, and matchmaking thatdraws the elite from the boredom of their country estates to London houses.That the Rushworths have managed to acquire the Lascelles’s house on Wimpole Street is a significant coup—and a costly achievement. But the house iseasily affordable for the couple, for Maria Bertram has married into money,and her husband can pay not only for the extensive improvements on the estate at Sotherton but also for the fine house on Wimpole Street. As EdwardCopeland points out, Mr. Rushworth’s “estate of 12,000 a year supports ahouse in an expensive, fashionable part of London” (324). The Lascelles houseon Wimpole Street is, indeed, a very fine and fashionable house, but this houseis doubly tainted. Not only is the Lascelles name connected with plantations,slavery, and corruption, but the Lascelles family is also obliquely connected—through marriage—with one of the great sexual scandals of the late eighteenth century.202PERSUASIONSN o. 33

Jane Austen’s readers would have recognized the Lascelles name, whichhad appeared prominently in the news a few years before she began writingMansfield Park. I propose that it is the Lascelles name, rather than a particular“Lady Lascelles,” that makes the connection to this house important to thethemes of Mansfield Park. Janine Barchas finds that the names of even the mostminor characters in her novels were carefully chosen by Austen “for suggestive combinations” (147), and in the context of this novel, Jane Austen has indeed chosen carefully: the combination of the name “Lascelles” with the place“Wimpole Street” radiates a deeper significance and binds together the moralproblems that underlie Mansfield Park. As Markman Ellis reminds us, “[e]achof Austen’s wealthiest gentlemen is identified by and through his estate. . . .[T]he estate is a synecdoche for a gentleman’s virtue, and hence an advertisement of his marital eligibility” (417). If a man is identified through his estate,and if an estate signifies a gentleman’s virtue, might not the Lady’s house onWimpole Street signify a lady’s virtue, or, by extension, her fall from virtue?As I argue in “Emma and ‘the children in Brunswick Square,’” in herchoice of urban locations Jane Austen was commenting, implicitly rather thanexplicitly, on important issues that affected the society of the late eighteenthand early nineteenth centuries. In Mansfield Park, the issue of the slave tradepermeates the novel’s text and subtext, to the extent that Sir Thomas Bertram’s trip to the West Indies serves to underscore the lack of a moral compass to guide the activities of the young people who live at Mansfield Park. AsClaire Tomalin notes, the corruption of Maria and Julia “is completed by moving from their father’s house in the country, where outwardly correct standards are maintained, to London, where anything goes” (225). When MariaBertram Rushworth absconds with Henry Crawford from the extravaganthouse on Wimpole Street, she is fulfilling the pattern of sexual abandonmentthat her behavior at Mansfield and Sotherton had forecast.Jocelyn Harris, in her discussion of geographical locations in Persuasion,points out how the slave port of Bristol made Bath rich and fashionable (Revolution 176–77). Jane Austen, Harris asserts, may have been familiar with information about the slave trade because James Brydges, Duke of Chandos (1674 –1774), was Mrs. Austen’s great uncle (176); he had a residence at PortmanSquare, an elegant square not far from the Rushworths’ house on WimpoleStreet. Nearby lived the very wealthy Elizabeth, Countess of Home, who hadbeen born in Jamaica and had gravitated to Portman Square, where her residence, the splendid Home House, at 20 Portman Square (built in 1773–77),drew in the growing West Indian contingent converging on MaryleboneLAURIE KAPLANThe Rushworths of Wimpole Street203

Devonshire Place and Wimpole Street, from the New Road, St Mary le Bone, by GeorgeBarret (the elder), after Charles Reuben Ryley (1799). Trustees of the British Museum.(Thorold 142). It is not a coincidence, therefore, that the actual Lascelles family,with their ties to the Islands and huge fortune, also had a house in PortmanStreet. When she wrote Mansfield Park, Jane Austen carefully moved her fictitious Lady Lascelles a few blocks away and placed her house in Wimpole Street.The Marylebone1 district was developing apace as fashionable peoplewith huge fortunes pushed north from Mayfair to find spacious, modern, elegant houses. The area’s connection with the “best people” was confirmed bythe fact that “[s]treets in what was originally the Cavendish-Harley estate,developed in the eighteenth century, took their names from the noble familieswho built there” (Wiltshire 724 n.2). Wimpole Street, constructed circa 1724by John Prince and named after the Cambridgeshire estate of the landlord,Edward Harley, Earl of Oxford (Weinreb and Hibbert 966), was “a principalstreet running north to south in Marylebone,” extending the length of “London’s most fashionable and expensive district,” with Mansfield Street runningparallel (Wiltshire 724 n.2). Like Portman Square, Wimpole Street attractedan enclave of very rich West Indian plantation owners, most of whom were204PERSUASIONSN o. 33

linked together by marriage, economic situation, banking interests, and thesugar trade.Jane Austen would have known of the connection between the newMarylebone developments and the slave trade. Acutely aware of social changesand shifts of political ideas, Austen creates a network of allusions to slavery,money, and inequality in Mansfield Park. References to Mansfield Park’s connection to the West Indies and the slave trade have been elaborated upon by anumber of critics, including Avrom Fleishman, Warren Roberts, and EdwardSaid. In A Revolution Almost Beyond Expression, Jocelyn Harris points out notonly that “Austen undoubtedly understood the implications of West Indian investments” (80), but that Austen’s “progressive stance” regarding the antislavery movement is underscored by her declaration (in a letter on 24 September1813) that she was “‘in love’ with the leading antislavery polemicist ThomasClarkson, author of History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of theAbolition of the African Slave Trade by the British Parliament (1808)” (81). Harrissays that “the name of Mansfield Park probably reflects Lord Mansfield’s decision of 1772 to make slavery illegal on British soil, while Fanny Price’s curiosity about the West Indies reproaches the other members of the family forcarelessness about the trade that enriches them all” (81).uBoth the Bertram and the Lascelles wealth was tied to their extensiveplantations in the West Indies. In the early eighteenth century half-brothersHenry and Edward Lascelles “amassed a large family fortune through working as sugar merchants, money lenders, slave traders, plantation owners, suppliers to the Navy and as Collectors of Customs for Bridgetown. Between1713 and 1717 Henry had a financial share in 21 slave ships and was partly responsible for trading thousands of slaves” (Harewood House 1807). In the1740s allegations of corruption were brought against both brothers, but thesecharges regarding “irregularities” that occurred under Henry’s colonial administration in Barbados were not proven. In 1753, however, Henry Lascellesinexplicably committed suicide, leaving a fortune of 392,704 (equivalent to 28.5m today) (Mauchline 8–11). His eldest son Edwin, who had been born inBarbados in 1712, inherited not only the Harewood estate in Yorkshire but theWest Indian plantations that flourished on the triangular slave and sugartrade. The plantations in Barbados, along with the Lascelles and Maxwellmerchant bank in London, produced a prodigious fortune. Edwin Lascelles,LAURIE KAPLANThe Rushworths of Wimpole Street205

Lord Harewood, an absentee landlord like Sir Thomas Bertram, became moreinterested in constructing a grand estate in Yorkshire than in overseeing thefamily concerns in the Islands.2 In 1759, Edwin began work on HarewoodHouse. Designed by John Carr and decorated by Robert Adam, HarewoodHouse became a home par excellence for an Earl. Chippendale supplied the furniture; both Capability Brown and Humphrey Repton created the gardens.In March 1807, George III had signed the Act abolishing the transatlantic slave trade. Following the King’s signing of this Act, the Parliamentaryelection in May 1807 took on a special significance in the national psyche, forabolition joined Catholic emancipation and mechanization in the cloth-makingfactories of the north as the major issues. Standing for Parliament in Yorkshire, in what was described as the “famous electoral battle between two greatYorkshire families for a county seat,” were William Wilberforce, Lord Milton,and Henry Lascelles (who, in 1820, would become the second Earl of Harewood) (Kennedy 74). In this election, Wilberforce was put forward as an abolitionist, but Lascelles was known as a plantation owner’s son, that is, as a slaveowner. Word on the street claimed that Lascelles would repeal the abolitionact if he were to be elected. Furthermore, Henry Lascelles was againstCatholic emancipation and for the mechanization of the factories. The hotlycontested (and very expensive) election lasted fifteen days, and eventuallyWilberforce and Lord Milton were elected; Henry Lascelles lost by a total of181 votes (Kennedy 73–74).I have included this background information to suggest the fact that, whenMansfield Park was published in 1814, the Lascelles name would have been recognized by Austen’s readers because of its connection with plantations in theWest Indies and with the slavery bill in Parliament. Gabrielle D. V. White, inJane Austen in the Context of Abolition: “a fling at the slave trade,” comments that theLascelles name “had become well-known” as one of the prominent families associated with absentee landlords (20) and that “the Lascelles-Wilberforce electoralstruggle in Yorkshire of 1807 would also have publicised the Lascelles family aspro-slavery” (182). The family’s connections to the lucrative plantation trade,which was the foundation of their wealth, and their exquisite collections ofpaintings and porcelain at Harewood House were public knowledge. In 1815, infact, their collection of Sèvres porcelain had achieved such renown that QueenCharlotte and the Prince Regent travelled to Yorkshire to see the Lascellescollection (Kennedy 124). Even their London townhouse “would have been associated with one of the most expensive addresses in London” (White 182). AsWhite notes, in Mansfield Park, “Mary Crawford, whose principles are foundwanting, is associated with the Lascelles name and so with its slavery connection206PERSUASIONSN o. 33

Wimpole Street and the Marylebone District, from Richard Horwood’s Plan of the Cities of London and Westminster . . . (1792). Trustees of the British Museum.that would have been well-known at the time” (20). It is Mary Crawford whotells Fanny Price that Lady Lascelles’s fictitious house on Wimpole Street isso expensive that “‘Henry could not have afforded [Maria] such a house’”(456).uIt is not only the connection with slavery that brought the Lascellesname into the realm of public scrutiny. The scandal surrounding the adulteryand elopement of first Earl’s stepdaughter Seymour Dorothy, Lady Worsley,LAURIE KAPLANThe Rushworths of Wimpole Street207

was “one of the eighteenth century’s most sensational legal suits” (Rubenhold1). Mary Mauchline notes that the marriage between Dorothy and Sir RichardWorsley of Appeldurcombe “was stormy and sad, and Lady Worsley’s amatory career the source of much scandal and gossip” (162), but that mild description of the Worsleys’ marital conflict hardly begins to describe the stateof her affairs. The details of the scandal, which hit the newspapers in February1782, are indeed shocking, providing fodder for cartoonists, lampoonists, andscandal sheets for many years.In Lady Worsley’s Whim, Hallie Rubenhold retells in rather graphic detailthe story of Seymour Dorothy Fleming’s numerous and tumultuous loveaffairs. Seymour was born on 5 October 1757, the fourth child of Jane Colman,granddaughter of the Duke of Somerset, and Sir John Fleming, a career soldier. When Sir John Fleming died, Lady Fleming in 1770 chose as her secondhusband Barbados-born Edwin Lascelles, widower, MP for Yorkshire, and avery rich man. From Sir John Fleming, who had been bequeathed a large fortuneby a fellow officer, His Majesty’s Governor of Gibraltar, Seymour and her eldersister Jane inherited a huge fortune (17–19). Seymour and Jane, as stepdaughters to Edwin Lascelles, had every material advantage the Fleming inheritanceand the Lascelles plantation money could provide. Like the Bertram sisters, theFleming girls were materialistic and careless heiresses, and on the marriagemarket the reputed 100,000 inheritance (in actuality, the sum was approximately 50,000) attracted hopeful, money-strapped beaux (Rubenhold 22–23).It was Seymour’s marriage in 1775 to another ostensibly rich man—SirRichard Worsley—that proved her undoing. Like Maria Bertram, Seymourchose quickly and stupidly, and she ended up with a man who was intellectually dull and socially inept, a man who cared more for his estate than for society. Sir Richard had returned from his grand tour in want of a rich wife; hegave himself five months to find an heiress who could replenish his founderingestate on the Isle of Wight. More interested in the inheritance than in the underage woman he married, Sir Richard quickly fathered an heir and then apparently lost interest in his high strung, romantic wife. It did not take long for themarriage to fall apart: Lady Worsley soon became enamored of CaptainGeorge Bisset, Sir Richard’s friend, neighbor, and fellow—albeit subordinate—officer in the South Hampshire Militia.The most sordid detail of this affair, and a detail that inflamed the nation’s gossips and newspaper cartoonists, focuses on Sir Richard’s behavior inhis wife’s amatory affair with Bisset. It has been suggested that Sir Richardacted as pimp in the relationship between his wife and his fellow officer, to the208PERSUASIONSN o. 33

extent that Sir Richard accepted Lady Worsley and Captain Bisset’s child, agirl born in London in 1781, as his own.But it was later in the autumn of 1781, when Lady Worsley visited theMaidstone baths, that the strange relationship between the Worsleys and Bisset started to become more or less public. It is reported that when LadyWorsley emerged from the female baths,she heard her husband and her lover beside the entrance. “Seymour! Seymour!” Sir Richard called out to her, “Bisset is going toget up and look at you!” Suddenly the captain’s face appeared in thewindow above the door. As he smiled at her, Lady Worsley steppedfrom the darkness of the alcove where . . . the bathing woman washelping her to dress. Moving into the full view afforded by theporthole, she displayed herself openly. The baronet held Bissettightly in place for five minutes, permitting him the spectacle of hishalf-naked wife as she teasingly drew on her clothing. (Rubenhold53)After the scene at the baths, in a most unfortunate decision, during which theadulterous couple underestimated the wider implications of their actions, LadyWorsley and Captain Bisset eloped. Ultimately, the couple was charged withthe crime of criminal conversation.When the Worsley v. Bisset case came to court in 1782, the Lord ChiefJustice Mansfield, the esteemed pro-abolitionist, presided. Grub Street hackswere about to go wild in their coverage of details of the bathing scene, the listof Lady Worsley’s supposed lovers, Sir Richard’s complicity in his wife’sdownfall, and the financial demands made by Sir Richard for reparation fordamage to his “property,” that is, his wife. Summarizing the case for the jury,Lord Mansfield asserted that the crux of the matter was “Whether Sir Richardhas not been privy to the prostitution of his wife?” (Rubenhold 154). When thejury returned its verdict, Sir Richard Worsley, who would forever after beknown as Sir Richard-Worse-than-Sly, was awarded a total of one shilling.While the Lascelles family distanced themselves from Seymour and took nonotice of the court case, Lady Worsley found herself depicted in a most compromising position in a battery of cartoons. Where once the Worsleys hadbeen painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds, they were now on display in print sellers’windows, for all to see, in James Gillray’s Sir Richard Worse-than-Sly, Exposinghis Wife’s Bottom; O fye!As Hazel Jones notes, Jane Austen herself “was not above a delightedwickedness in retailing scandal and gossip to her correspondents, nor includ-LAURIE KAPLANThe Rushworths of Wimpole Street209

Sir Richard Worse-than-Sly, Exposing His Wifes Bottom; O Fye! by James Gillray (1782). Trustees of the British such behaviours in her novels” (102), so it is safe to assume that at sometime the young novelist would have heard about this case, which was the talkof the nation as well as Hampshire, and at some point Jane Austen would haveseen the immensely popular lampoons displayed widely in print sellers’ windows throughout the land.210PERSUASIONSN o. 33

uWhen Mary Crawford first mentions the Lascelles house on WimpoleStreet, she links the house with money, suggesting that Mrs. Rushworth’sparty will make her feel “‘—to use a vulgar phrase—that she has got her pennyworth for her penny’” (456). When later she writes to Fanny, Mary Crawford’sreport about the Rushworths’ first party is filled with ironic understatement:“‘I ought to have sent you an account . . . ; suffice it, that every thing was just asit ought to be, . . . and that her own dress and manners did her the greatestcredit. My friend Mrs. Fraser is mad for such a house . . .’” (482 emphasisadded). House on Wimpole Street, dress, manners—Mary Crawford findsthese outward signs of Mrs. Rushworth’s wealth and position in society significant; in contrast, Edmund Bertram, who has dined twice at WimpoleStreet, finds it “mortifying” to be in company with Rushworth and avoids thehouse (491).In Portsmouth, while Fanny is staying with her parents, a particularparagraph in his newspaper rouses Mr. Price from his usual lethargy to question Fanny about her “‘great cousins in town’”: “‘And don’t they live inWimpole Street?’” (509), he asks. Before Fanny even knows what has happened,her father proclaims to his astonished daughter, “‘[B]y G— if she belonged tome, I’d give her the rope’s end as long as I could stand over her. A little flogging for man and woman too, would be the best way of preventing suchthings’” (509). The violence with which Mr. Price responds to the gossip he isreading is shocking. When Fanny picks up the newspaper she reads:“it was with infinite concern the newspaper had to announce to theworld, a matrimonial fracas in the family of Mr. R. of WimpoleStreet; the beautiful Mrs. R. whose name had not long been enrolled in the lists of hymen, and who had promised to become sobrilliant a leader in the fashionable world, having quitted her husband’s roof in company with the well known and captivating Mr. C.the intimate friend and associate of Mr. R. and it was not known,even to the editor of the newspaper, whither they were gone.” (509)After their disgrace, both Lady Worsley and Mrs. Rushworth fall prey to thegossip columnists, but at least Maria Rushworth is spared the humiliation ofbeing depicted in flagrante with her paramour.Like Lady Worsley, Mrs. Rushworth finds that the attachment outside thebonds of matrimony to which she has sacrificed herself cannot stand the stressof public disapprobation. When Mrs. Rushworth leaves the house on WimpoleLAURIE KAPLANThe Rushworths of Wimpole Street211

Street, she knows she courts public disgrace, but she assures herself that HenryCrawford will marry her after her divorce from Mr. Rushworth. Mr. Rushworth’s angry mother, counteracting all methods of hushing up the sad eventsat Wimpole Street, sets in motion the publication of her son’s wife’s disgrace.Soon, “[e]very thing was . . . public beyond a hope” (521). Mr. Rushworthgets off easily: he is granted a divorce (537). Maria Bertram Rushworth,however, suffers the fate of other women of the time—women not unlike LadyWorsley—who married in haste: her relationship with Henry Crawford fallsapart. The beautiful Mrs. Rushworth, who was to have such a gloriousLondon season, finds herself estranged from her family, ostracized fromMansfield Park, and secluded with Mrs. Norris in an establishment “in another country—remote and private, . . . with little society” (538).What is rotten at the heart of Mansfield Park is doubly rotten at Wimpole Street. The narrator informs the reader that “Fanny was disposed tothink the influence of London very much at war with all respectable attachments” (501), but Wimpole Street, rather than London, is the focal point ofvanity, guilt, and misery. Markman Ellis says that “Sir Thomas Bertram’sjourney to Antigua broadcasts his status as a slave-holder, a morally reprehensible status . . .” (423). But if Sir Thomas’s journey to Antigua forms one partof the journey toward an understanding of what June Sturrock refers to as a“diseased relationship with money” (182), then Mrs. Rushworth’s journeyfrom Mansfield Park to—and from—the best house on Wimpole Street suggests, as Mr. Price opines, how she and “‘so many fine ladies were going to thedevil now-a-days that way, that there was no answering for anybody’” (510).With neither guardianship nor moral compass, Maria Bertram Rushworth isdoomed to disgrace, punishment, and misery.uIn his book The London Rich Peter Thorold writes that in the last quarterof the eighteenth century “Marylebone and the West Indians became closelyidentified” (142). Hence, Thorold notes, “When, in Mansfield Park, Sir ThomasBertram’s elder daughter marries, she and her husband take a house in Wimpole Street which had recently belonged to ‘Lady Lascelles.’” A careful readingof the London section of Mansfield Park reveals that the house on WimpoleStreet, in conjunction with Lady Lascelles, a name that Austen uses only oncein the novel, resonates with the themes the author explores. Wimpole Street,one of the seemingly most insignificant details in the topography of the212PERSUASIONSN o. 33

London chapters of the novel, emerges as revelatory of Austen’s subtle use ofrealistic and historic detail.The West Indian connection with Marylebone, which began in the eighteenth century when plantation owners flocked to this particular area of London,lasted well into the reign of Queen Victoria. In 1784, a gardener at nearbyPortman Square made a list of real-life residents who lived in the area; he compiled a slate of Admirals and Earls, Lords and Ladies, a high percentage ofwhom owned West Indian plantations. It is interesting to note that CaptainBisset deserted Lady Worsley in 1783 (Ruenhold 219–20). After a year of consorting with the retinue surrounding the Prince of Wales, the couple wasdebt-ridden and unable to keep up with the fast set that had adopted them.Separation was inevitable. At the time Bisset left, Lady Worsley, pregnantwith Bisset’s second child and in dire need of someone to support her financially, attached herself to the West Indian plantation owner Isaac Byers, andthe couple lived together on Newman Street, in Fitzrovia, a neighborhoodclose to the West Indian enclave on Wimpole Street. Soon, however, to escapeduns and bailiffs, Lady Worsley fled to the Continent and, ultimately, revertedto her maiden name and was known as Lady Fleming.In the early nineteenth century, one of Jane Austen’s sailor brothers wasalso connected through marriage to the area. While he was stationed in Bermuda, Charles Austen had met Fanny Palmer, the sixteen-year-old daughterof the island’s former Attorney-General; they were engaged in 1806 and married in 1807 (the year the anti-slavery bill was signed). Fanny died in childbirth, the child two weeks later, on board the Namur in 1814, and in 1820,Charles remarried—his bride was Harriet Palmer, his sister-in-law (Nokes319; 450; 525).3 The Palmers’ house in London was at No. 22 Keppel Street,approximately one-half mile from Wimpole Street and therefore within blocksof the Marylebone neighborhood where the Rushworths settled after theirwedding trip.In 1837, “Edward Moulton-Barrett, father of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, a member of one of the most important slave-owning families in theCaribbean,” moved his family into 50 Wimpole Street (Thorold 145). In thishouse on Wimpole Street, Elizabeth, an invalid, met Robert Browning.Robert, who was also descended from a West Indian family, courted Elizabethat the Moulton-Barrett home on Wimpole Street, and, in 1846, the coupleeloped to Italy. Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s father never forgave her.LAURIE KAPLANThe Rushworths of Wimpole Street213

1. Marylebone was named after the church known as St. Mary-by-the-Tyburn or St. Mary-a-leBourne.2. Thorold points out that “[m]any of the West Indians never went near their plantations. TheLascelles family were sugar factors and bankers. During the last part of the eighteenth centurythere were three Lascelles MPs in the House of Commons, none of whom, as far as it is known,ever visited the family’s Barbados estates” (131).3. Deirdre Le Faye: “At that date marriage with a deceased wife’s sister was not illegal but certainly subject to disapproval, as it fell within the prohibitions of the Prayerbook’s Table ofKindred & Affinity . . .” (264). In 1826 Charles returned to Jamaica on the frigate Aurora. Austen, Jane. Mansfield Park. Ed. JohnWiltshire. Cambridge: CUP, 2005.Le Faye, Deirdre. Jane Austen: A Family Record.2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP, 2004.Barchas, Janine. “Artistic Names in Austen’sFiction: Cameo Appearances byProminent Painters.” Persuasions 31(2009): 145–62.Nokes, David. Jane Austen: A Life. New York:Farrar, 1997.Copeland, Edward. “Money.” Jane Austen inContext. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: CUP,2005. 317–26.Ellis, Markman. “Trade.” Jane Austen inContext. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: CUP,2005. 415–24.Harewood House 1807: A Commemoration of theBi-centenary of the Abolition of the SlaveTrade and the Yorkshire Election in 1807Contested by William Wilberforce, HenryLascelles and Lord Milton. Leeds: n.p., 2007.Harris, Jocelyn. A Revolution Almost BeyondExpression: Jane Austen’s Persuasion.Newark: U Delaware P, 2007.Kennedy, Carol. Harewood: The Life and Timesof an English Country House. London:Hutchinson, 1982.Mauchline, Mary. Harewood House: One of theTreasure Houses of Britain. 1974.Ashbourne, UK: Moorland, 1992.214PERSUASIONSRubenhold, Hallie. Lady Worsley’s Whim: AnEighteenth-Century Tale of Sex, Scandal andDivorce. London: Vintage, 2009.Sturrock, June. “Money, Morals, and MansfieldPark: The West Indies Revisited.”Persuasions 28 (2006): 176–84.Thorold, Peter. The London Rich: The Creationof a Great City, from 1666 to the Present.London: Viking, 1999.Tomalin, Claire. Jane Austen: A Life. NewYork: Knopf, 1997.Weinreb, Ben, and Christopher Hibbert. TheLondon Encyclopaedia. Bethesda, MD:Adler, 1986.White, Gabrielle D. V. Jane Austen in theContext of Abolition: “a fling at the slavetrade.” Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006.Wiltshire, John, ed. Mansfield Park.Cambridge: CUP, 2005.N o. 33

LAURIE KAPLAN Laurie Kaplan, Professor of English and Academic Director of George Washington University’s England Center, has published essays on the London settings in Jane Austen’s novels (Brunswick Square [Emma]and Mayfair [Sense and Sensibility]). She has also pub - lished essa