Eltis does suggest that Britain cared about “the industriousness of British workers,” so perhaps British people at the time would hold the contention in (B). But Eltis himself never takes a stance on whether a strong labor force was, in fact, important. His argument has nothing to do with the strength of the labor force. Rather, his argument is that a voluntary labor force served Britain better, and that this economic explanation—rather than Drescher’s populist activism explanation—is why slavery was abolished.

Eltis doesn’t argue that slavery was important as an institution in Britain. He’s simply pushing back against Drescher’s “idealization of British traditions of liberty.” Eltis thinks Drescher is exaggerating British people’s pro-liberty attitudes at the time. He brings up the pro-slavery views of “certain notables” to support that point. (Drescher thinks Britain was pro-liberty? Think again, Drescher—these people we pro-slavery!)

Eltis never argues that the laboring classes provided little support. In fact, he believes that they provided significant support; his entire argument is a hypothesis for how Britain managed to muster popular support for abolition across class divides.

Eltis doesn’t make any argument about laborers’ civil rights. Yes, he notes that laborers suffered low wages and harsh laws, and he brings up the pro-slavery views of “certain notables” to illustrate the attitudes underlying those wages and laws. But Eltis’ point there is simply that Britain wasn’t as pro-liberty as some people (i.e., Drescher) might think. He never raises the notion of rights. Maybe Eltis thinks laborers in preindustrial Britain had many—but terrible—rights: the right to earn two cents per month, the right to 20-hour work days, the right to one minute of vacation per year...