In Elizabeth Heyrick’s time, women did not have the vote and were absent from political debates. Frequently they were also excluded from political petitions. At best a wife might bend her husband’s or her brother’s ear, but there was no guarantee they would not be counter-swayed by the influence of their peers.
Elizabeth Heyrick knew one thing women could do:
“Is there nothing to be done… Yes, there is one… Abstinence from the use of West Indian Productions, sugar especially, in the cultivation of which slave labour is chiefly occupied.”
She reasoned:
“When there is no longer a market for the productions of slave labour, then, and not till then, will the slaves be emancipated… It is abundantly proved that voluntary labour is more productive, more advantageous to the employer than compulsory labour.”
William Fox had published a pamphlet in 1791 calling for a sugar boycott, sold through his bookshop in London. That movement, combined with petitions to parliament, pushed parliament to outlaw the slave trade in 1807. But outlawing the trade did not outlaw the ownership of slaves.
Elizabeth Heyrick felt another sugar boycott could demonstrate a groundswell of movement for immediate abolition:
“What can the abstinence of a few individuals, or a few families do, towards the accomplishment of so vast an object? It can do wonders. Great effects often result from small beginnings.”
She was keenly aware that, although generally men provided the household income and set budgets, it was women who bought food and who could action a boycott. Getting the message out to a wider audience would be tricky. Firstly, she resisted calling it abstinence:
“But abstinence it cannot be called; - we only need substitute East India for West India sugar, - and the British atmosphere would be purified at once, from the poisonous infection of slavery.”
Her focus was on swapping one brand of sugar for another, an easy thing for a cook or a household servant to do. She also persuaded grocers and confectioners to make the swap too.
Women were often not permitted to join political meetings. Women’s meetings were often based around creative endeavours: arts groups, reading clubs, needlework groups or musical groups. Distribution of Elizabeth Heyrick’s pamphlets was often through workbags, typically a handstitched fabric bag with a drawstring closure that could be attached to a belt. Women’s clothes did not have integrated pockets. A workbag could be tied at the waist, often under an outer skirt, so they did not spoilt the silhouette of a dress.
While Elizabeth Heyrick was sceptical about the value of political petitions – even if a woman wanted to sign, her husband might refuse to let her do so – she did see a value in getting members of women’s groups to sign a pledge to action the boycott:
“Your resolution will influence that of your friends and neighbours; each of them will, in like manner, influence their friends and neighbours; the example will spread from house to house, from city to city, till among those who have any claim to humanity, there will be but one heart, and one mind, - one resolution, one uniform practice. Thus by means of the most simple and easy, would West Indian slavery be the most safely and speedily abolished.”
By signing up to the boycott, others would be reassured by numbers and join in. Influential women could encourage a wider participation.
In addition Elizabeth Heyrick walked Leicester’s streets, knocking on doors to speak to women directly. In an age where education was not free and schooling had to be paid for by families, parents sent boys to school so they could enter professions that excluded women. It wasn’t a good return on investment to educate daughters. Daughters of upper- and middle-class families might be sent to a cheaper Dame school where they would learn household and servant management, needlework and limited artistic skills with the aim of making a good marriage. Working class daughters ended up in service as household servants or got jobs in the weaving and textile industries, leaving them illiterate.