Jane Austen

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. What a wonderful debate to bring to this Chamber, on which I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). Jane Austen: what a legend, what a genius! She is still inspiring us today, and what an opportunity we have to hear from her directly, as she wanders the streets of Bath in 2025 through a little bit of time travel:

“My dearest Cassandra, you will laugh at me, I am sure, for the rapture in which I write, but I cannot help myself, for Bath is a much changed city from when you and I did grace its fair streets. I shall do but imperfect justice with my pen, but will endeavour to paint in your mind a picture befitting this changed city, which, despite the marching of time, I still find to hold immeasurable beauty.

As I wound through the streets of Bath, I marvelled at the honey-coloured stone, which did glow as pleasantly as ever. But sister, what will truly astonish you is what I did see coming towards me: I would call it a carriage, yet it is a strange mechanical one whose body is silver, and how it moves is beyond my comprehension, as there are no horses to pull it. Goodness! The noise it produced was most dreadful: a mixture of cry and roar such that I was compelled to leap from its path.

There are, too, these strange signs affixed around the town, and for the life of me I cannot decipher their meaning. ‘Clean air zone’ is inscribed upon them—what a peculiar thing to write! Sister, when I uncover their origin and meaning, I will let you know with great haste.

No sooner had I proceeded a little further than my senses were again most violently assailed, for I encountered a most merry band and of women, full of uproarious amusement; one did speak of a ‘hen party’. I shall not attempt to describe their attire, for it would, I fear, defile my pen. You may imagine them as you will, sister, but I shall leave that to you.

They still hold celebrations and festivals in Bath; I watched one where ladies and gentlemen paraded about in coats and costumes of such cut and colour that I felt I had stepped into one of my own chapters. I observed them with all the greatest delight, so imagine my surprise when I found it was being undertaken in my honour. How gratifying to have unconsciously inspired so strong an affection!

You will laugh, but it continues. I inquired, and found this not a singular affair; events across the city are held entirely to commemorate me. Exhibitions in museums and balls of the sort we once danced at are held in grand halls during an annual festival. There is even a museum—they call it the Jane Austen Centre—which informs visitors of my life, work and the manner in which I lived. I ought to be embarrassed, and perhaps I am—but only just a little. Mostly, I am entertained beyond measure.

I am often detained by Bath’s excellent bookshops. One such establishment, Persephone Books, is a publisher devoted to selling neglected fiction and non-fiction text by women authors. It is admirable to see this shop promoting women writers. Imagine if when I struggled to publish my books, I had had such support. I find this accompanied with a certain vexation, though, as I see so very few women’s titles—or, indeed, their characters—within school curricula. The imbalance is unmistakable. The books of men and the stories of their heroes are bound in such numbers that it is most improper. I hear—and I do say it is frightful—that only 5% of GCSE pupils studied a text authored by a women for GCSE literature in 2024. Such figures speak plainly and require no ornament. That books written by women appear so seldom in the curriculum is most unjustifiable.

I then, most unexpectedly, found myself being carried along by a crowd, my legs no longer my own. Hurried to a great stadium and with my curiosity spurring me on I ventured within and behold, what a spectacle presented itself! A number of gentlemen most astonishingly hurled one another across the grass in pursuit of a misshapen ball. They ended up in a most undignified heap, yet the people appeared highly entertained. I, caught up in the fervour, did lend my own voice. That is how I, to my own surprise, became a supporter of Bath Rugby.

Cassandra, how a single city can change so much I cannot easily comprehend, but it is not an unhappy alternative lying before me. Far from it: Bath still leaves my heart fluttering. Until you can come again, you must accept this poor description in place of your own experience, and believe me, as ever, to be your affectionate sister Jane.”

I apologise to all Jane Austen scholars, everybody who loves her and the great author herself for this poor epistle—but my team and I had great fun.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)]

Well, if only the Conservatives were not full of pride and prejudice—sorry, I could not resist that. It is a great delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Minister in possession of a good portfolio must be in want of a debate. When it turned out that the culture Minister was unavailable this afternoon, I wanted to embody another quote from “Northanger Abbey”:

“There is nothing I would not do for those who are really my friends. I have no notion of loving people by halves; it is not my nature.”

That is why I am here on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, although I am in the Department for Business and Trade.

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate which, at one point, was in danger of becoming about tourism rather than Jane Austen. However, we had some good literary criticism later on, including going into the nature of the prose that Jane Austen wrote. It is always good to see an English degree put to use at some point in somebody’s career—I have one myself, so am delighted by it.

I am a bit disturbed, however, that we are talking about Jane Austen, and so far the character that people have referred to most and questioned the actions of is Mr Darcy. Surely we should be talking about the female actors who have appeared. The bigger question should be who is the better Lizzy Bennet: is it Jennifer Ehle or Keira Knightley? [Interruption.] Apparently there is no question about that either.

It was great to hear from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), although he has now disappeared, so he must be taking to heart another of Jane Austen’s lines:

“There is nothing like staying at home for real comfort.”

It was good to hear from him briefly, even though he has now departed. It is always good to hear from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who took us on a tour of his constituency as well, talking proudly about many of the tourist attractions. I will come on to the point about how Jane Austen has probably contributed to the modern economy of the UK more than any other single individual, Dickens may be able to challenge that, but hers is certainly a very significant contribution to our modern economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) spoke without claiming any particular identity with Austen for her constituency. I identified with her in this: I do not think that any of the characters from any of Jane Austen’s novels ever visited Rhondda, Ogmore, Blaengwarw, Blaenrhondda, Pontycymer or any of the other places that Hansard will not be able to spell.

It was also great to hear from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). As part of the celebrations earlier this year, I went to the Jane Austen Centre in Bath, which I think received 200,000 visitors in 2024. I am sure the numbers were larger this year. It has some fascinating items from Jane Austen’s life and the life of her family. The whole city feels like it is “Jane Austenville”, not only because of the bookshops—although Bath has some of the finest independent bookshops in the land—but because of the museums and houses there that have been used in film adaptations or television series. I will come on to “Bridgerton” later.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the Minister acknowledge the unbalanced literature that is still taught in schools, the majority of which is written by men as opposed to women?

[Chris Bryant]

In fact, the one book that we were recommended to read about Jane Austen was by a man, which seemed a little bit ironic. I will address some of those points later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) was querying what kind of clergyman I am; I think I am more Trollope really—it has been said before. Some of the clerical characters in Trollope are more my kind of style. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is right that Jane Austen is buried in Winchester Cathedral. The initial gravestone referred to her mind, but not to her works. That was rectified in later years, which is really important. I suppose there was some kind of prejudice about the idea that a woman would not just have a mind but actually do something with it, which I am glad to say we have managed to overcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made an important point about how this debate is taking place two days after the anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth, but that it is also a day when the Government are bringing forward important legislation. One can interpret many of the scenes between men and women in Jane Austen’s books as being about coercive control—a point that my hon. Friend made well. I have already referred to the literary criticism offered the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It is always good to hear from a Whip—unless one is in trouble and has forgotten a vote—and was great to have her in this debate.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), of whom I am enormously fond—well, anyway—tried to claim Jane Austen as a member of the modern Conservative party. I think he was trying to hand her a membership card. It is true that she was sceptical of revolution, but she also hated hypocrisy—make of that what you will. [Interruption.] I’m joking. She was sceptical of revolution, but in many ways she brought about a revolution in that she was able to publish books and get them printed, and she has continued to be a presence in a world that has been dominated by men, by male publishers and male writers for generation after generation. Sometimes there is a radicalism in quiet conservatism, and sometimes conservatism in quiet radicalism.

Obviously, Austen was famous as an author. It was mentioned earlier that some 92,000 copies of her books have been sold in the UK this year. It might be more by now because it was 78,500 by the end of June. Her writing is sometimes referred to as subtle, nuanced, clever; there is a comedy of manners involved in it. We have already heard the reference to the sharp prose that she engaged in. One of my favourite moments is when Darcy says to Lizzy:

“But it has been the study of my life to avoid those weaknesses, which often expose a strong understanding to ridicule.”

And Lizzy says:

“Such as vanity and pride.”

That is a burn—a real burn on a very arrogant man who is not able to see his own ridiculousness.

Austen has been vital to today’s creative industries. We have referred to several different versions of “Pride and Prejudice”. If we include “Clueless” and productions like that, probably $1.2 billion-worth of revenues have been generated from film and television adaptations. There was a great new production of “Emma” at the Theatre Royal in Bath earlier this year. Incidentally, the Theatre Royal in Bath is a wonderful institution that does not take a single penny from the Arts Council, because it has decided that it can do things on its own.

And then we have “Bridgerton”, which everybody recognises as sort of being by Jane Austen, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with her. One of its triumphs is not only that successive series have given us phenomenal storylines that feel Jane Austen-like—we kind of know where it is going to end up; it is not the twist that matters, but the getting there—but it has also given us Adjoa Andoh and a very brave moment of television where a black woman is cast as a queen in a period that clearly would not have had a black queen in the UK, and yet it is entirely characteristically Jane Austen. And of course it has given us the most beautiful man in the world, Jonathan Bailey—not according to me, but according to lots of other people—who plays one of the main leads. I see several Members smiling, so I think they agree.

Austen has done a phenomenal amount for tourism in the UK. I have already referred to the Jane Austen Centre in Bath. Many TV and film locations have managed to do extraordinarily well in recent years, including several aristocratic homes such as Lyme Park, which featured in “Pride and Prejudice”. It had 300,000 visitors last year, many of whom will have come because of the connection with the film. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked what the Government are doing. Well, VisitBritain has been trying to build on this sense of “starring Great Britain”. A lot of international visitors to the UK—we set a target of getting to 50 million visitors by 2030—have done so specifically to visit places they recognise because films were made there, including many of the Jane Austen adaptations. It is a really important part of what we do.

Likewise, Arts Council England has supported many literary-based projects, including quite a lot of Jane Austen ones this year. Alongside providing funding for the Jane Austen Fan Club and the “Sensibilities on the Bonnet” project, it has supported Southampton Forward, and God’s House Tower, which presented her writing desk as part of the Jane Austen 250 celebrations earlier this year, as has been mentioned. The Forest arts centre in Hampshire received support to research collections of early music, including that owned by Jane Austen and her sister, and the Dorset Museum & Art Gallery held a “Jane Austen: Down to the Sea” exhibition using funding from ACE, with support from the Government indemnity scheme, which ACE administers.

Several Members referred to one element of Jane Austen that I think is really important. We have heard half the quote I am about to give, but I will say the next line, which is just as important. On women, one of her characters said:

“I hate to hear you talking…as if women were all fine ladies, instead of rational creatures.”

The next line is:

“We none of us expect to be in smooth water all our days.”

The sense that a woman is far more than just the stereotype so much literature had created up to that time is a really important part of the radicalism inherent in Austen.

Jane Austen has not been the only woman writer in our history. Before her, the great playwright Aphra Behn wrote some phenomenal plays. Daphne du Maurier’s book “Rebecca” is one of the most read novels in our history. There are George Eliot, who often confuses people by being called that rather than Mary Ann Evans, and the Brontës. Agatha Christie, who made one of our biggest contributions to world literature, is renowned across the world—not only in the UK and the United States of America, but in large parts of Africa, China and south-east Asia. In recent years, we have had Hilary Mantel. Only a few days ago, I saw yet another version of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, which I think is probably the closest to the original, and Iris Murdoch is one of my favourite novelists. Austen’s role as a woman novelist who survived and managed to make a living, and who had female characters with three dimensions to them rather than just one or two, is such an important part of what she gave us.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup read this quotation from “Sense and Sensibility”:

“It is not what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.”

That is true. It is not just having a debate here today that defines what we think about Jane Austen; it is what we do, and I think we need to celebrate reading far more.

One of the problems for many young people—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who used to be Education Secretary, will know how important this is—is getting them to read anything longer than a post or a tweet, or to watch something longer than two minutes, but being able to concentrate on the whole plot across 200 or 300 pages, or whatever it may be, is really important. We must have parents reading to their children and reading in schools, and we must have libraries in schools and in communities, because enabling people to read is a really important part of what we do. As Members of Parliament, we need to do far more to celebrate reading itself.

We should also celebrate publishing, because it is one of the things that the UK does phenomenally well. We export more books than any other country in the world, which is partly because we are a really good crossroads of the nations. Some of the best writing in the English language is written by people in India or Pakistan, or in Africa. We celebrate that as part of the publishing that we give to the rest of the world. Some of it is technical publishing, of course, but we should celebrate that part of our creative industries, and we should of course celebrate the knock-on effect of having so many of our great films and television series spring from books that have been written in the UK and by British writers.

Above all, I want us just to celebrate novels. Fiction is so important because it is so easy for us to be trapped in our own little world—the world that we know, are comfortable with and have chosen because we follow certain people and not others. I want people to go into a bookshop and browse. They should browse, and find something they would not otherwise find, or a novel telling a story that they would not otherwise know anything about. I remember reading a book a few years ago about a migrant coming to the UK on a small boat, and it completely changed my understanding of what somebody else’s life might be like. I am sure everybody who is listening to this debate will recognise the experience of seeing life from a completely different angle, because they read a fictional account. It is so important to be able to walk in somebody else’s shoes, empathise and sympathise, and embrace a wider set of possibilities in life. Of course, Jane Austen herself wrote:

“The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.”

She really did have a point.

I am thinking of instituting something for next year. Next Christmas, when we have a debate like this, nobody should be allowed to take part unless they have read six good novels that were written that year—not just things from 500 years ago, 300 years ago or 100 years ago. No Member will be allowed to take part in the debate unless they have read—bought or from a library—six new novels.

I am going to make four recommendations of my own, all by women authors, from the last 18 months or so. The first is Samantha Harvey’s “Orbital”, which is a magnificent short novel; it is almost like poetry, the way that it is written. The second is Yael van der Wouden’s “The Safekeep”, which I have just finished reading. It is absolutely beautiful; it is set in the Netherlands, and the story is completely and utterly surprising. The third is Maggie O’Farrell’s “Hamnet”, the film of which has just been released. It is so moving and a beautiful rendition of another part of our literary history. The fourth is the book that I finished just before “The Safekeep”: Elizabeth Day’s “One of Us”. If anybody else wants to take part in next year’s debate, including you, Mr Efford, they have to have read six new novels by British authors.