Ms Elton is shwoing off, with her ideas of card parties. Her ideal card party is based upon the ones she had attended in Bath. She is shocked at the provinciality of Highbury society. She can tell them all what to do, for only she knows what true style is, as only she has seen it in operation ...at Bath.

This remember in a comunity where the nearet thing to a smart gambling den is the local whist club made up of such high living people as Mr Perry ;-)

Let's remind ourselves of exactly what she says:

No invitation came amiss to her. Her Bath habits made evening-parties perfectly natural to her, and Maple Grove had given her a taste for dinners. She was a little shocked at the want of two drawing rooms, at the poor attempt at rout-cakes, and there being no ice in the Highbury card parties. Mrs. Bates, Mrs. Perry, Mrs. Goddard and others, were a good deal behind hand in knowledge of the world, but she would soon shew them how every thing ought to be arranged. In the course of the spring she must return their civilities by one very superior party; in which her card tables should be set out with their separate candles and unbroken packs in the true style, and more waiters engaged for the evening than their own establishment could furnish, to carry round the refreshments at exactly the proper hour, and in the proper order.

She would soon show these country bumpkins how everything ought to be arranged...ice(,ice was only available in the country to those who had access to an ice house, possibly Mr Woodhouse and Mr Knightley,but that would be it, whereas in the town it could be brought from smart confectioners shops,like Mollands but probably not easily obtained in Highbury), candles(wax, of course- expensive things in those days when candles were taxed),extra servants , and most insluting of all.... the unbroken packs of cards

Why in the friendly community that is Highbury would that be thought necessary?

If you consider it, though it might be "smart" its also a bit insulting: the only people with whom the Eltons are going to play cards are , on the whole, the good and honest inhabitants of Highbury and not one of them is renowned for being a card shark. The Westons,The Bates's, Mr Knightley,Mr Perry The Coxes and Coles........?

In aristocratic circles where people might not be intimately known to each other in large parties, or indeed, reputations may be too well known ,then that situation warranted new decks of cards being purchased for each card party, if one was suspicious of the morals/reputation of an attendee where gaming was concerned ; or at public assemblies such as at Bath, another situation where you could possibly be mixing with strangers/and or card sharks, then yes, having new packs was probably a very wise precaution. But to do it in your own home, where you are playing cards with your intimate circle....?

It indicates not only out of place smartness but a lack of trust in ones guests, which is typical of Mrs Elton and her ilk.

I'll bet they don't use new unbroken packs at Hartfield when Mrs Goddard and Miss Bates arrive for their games of quadrille ;-)

And as to the hired waiters: they would be from The Crown ,no doubt, and no they would NOT have been slaves, but employees. The Somerset Case, as decided by Lord Mansfield didn't , in strict legal theory, end the right of slave owners to own slaves even if they were in Britain,but most people thought it did (and that was the important point about it,IMHO),as evidenced by this (rather long) extract from Thomas Clarkson's History of the Abolition of the Slave Trade:

But soon after the work just mentioned was out, and when Mr. Sharp was better prepared, a third case occurred. This happened in the year 1770. Robert Stapylton, who lived at Chelsea, in conjunction with John Malony and Edward Armstrong, two watermen, seized the person of Thomas Lewis, an African slave, in a dark night, and dragged him to a boat lying in the Thames; they then gagged him, and tied him with a cord, and rowed him down to a ship, and put him on board to be sold as a slave in Jamaica. This base action took place near the garden of Mrs. Banks, the mother of the present Sir Joseph Banks. Lewis, it appears, on being seized, screamed violently. The servants of Mrs. Banks, who heard his cries, ran to his assistance, but the boat was gone. On informing their mistress of what had happened, she sent for Mr. Sharp, who began now to be known as the friend of the helpless Africans, and professed her willingness to incur the expense of bringing the delinquents to justice. Mr. Sharp, with some difficulty, procured a habeas corpus, in consequence of which Lewis was brought from Gravesend just as the vessel was on the point of sailing. An action was then commenced against Stapylton, who defended himself, on the plea, “That Lewis belonged to him as his slave.” In the course of the trial, Mr. Dunning, who was counsel for Lewis, paid Mr. Sharp a handsome compliment, for he held in his hand Mr. Sharp’s book on the injustice and dangerous tendency of tolerating slavery in England, while he was pleading; and in his address to the jury he spoke and acted thus: “I shall submit to you,” says Mr. Dunning, “what my ideas are upon such evidence, reserving to myself an opportunity of discussing it more particularly, and reserving to myself a right to insist upon a position, which I will maintain (and here he held up the book to the notice of those present) in any place and in any court of the kingdom, that our laws admit of no such property* .” The result of the trial was, that the jury pronounced the plaintiff not to have been the property of the defendant, several of them crying out “No property, no property.”

After this, one or two other trials came on, in which the oppressor was defeated, and several cases occurred, in which poor slaves were liberated from the holds of vessels, and other places of confinement, by the exertions of Mr. Sharp. One of these cases was singular. The vessel on board which a poor African had been dragged and confined had reached the Downs, and had actually got under weigh for the West Indies. In two or three hours she would have been out of sight; but just at this critical moment the writ of habeas corpus was carried on board. The officer, who served it on the captain, saw the miserable African chained to the mainmast, bathed in tears, and casting a last mournful look on the land of freedom, which was fast receding from his sight. The captain, on receiving the writ, became outrageous; but, knowing the serious consequences of resisting the law of the land, he gave up his prisoner, whom the officer carried safe, but now crying for joy, to the shore.

But though the injured Africans, whose causes had been tried, escaped slavery, and though many, who had been forcibly carried into dungeons, ready to be transported into the Colonies, had been delivered out of them. Mr. Sharp was not easy in his mind. Not one of the cases had yet been pleaded on the broad ground, “Whether an African slave coming into England became free?” This great question had been hitherto studiously avoided. It was still, therefore, left in doubt. Mr. Sharp was almost daily acting as if it had been determined, and as if he had been following the known law of the land. He wished therefore that the next cause might be argued upon this principle. Lord Mansfield too, who had been biassed by the opinion of York and Talbot, began to waver in consequence of the different pleadings he had heard on this subject. He saw also no end of trials like these, till the law should be ascertained, and he was anxious for a decision on the same basis as Mr. Sharp. In this situation the following case offered, which was agreed upon for the determination of this important question.

James Somerset, an African slave, had been brought to England by his master, Charles Stewart, in November 1769. Somerset, in process of time, left him. Stewart took an opportunity of seizing him, and had him conveyed on board the Ann and Mary, captain Knowles, to be carried out of the kingdom and sold as a slave in Jamaica. The question was—“Whether a slave, by coming into England, became free?”

In order that time might be given for ascertaining the law fully on this head, the case was argued at three different sittings. First, in January, 1772; secondly, in February, 1772; and thirdly, in May, 1772. And that no decision otherwise than what the law warranted might be given, the opinion of the Judges was taken upon the pleadings. The great and glorious result of the trial was, That as soon as ever any slave set his foot upon English territory, he became free.

Thus ended the great case of Somerset, which, having been determined after so deliberate an investigation of the law, can never be reversed while the British Constitution remains. The eloquence displayed in it by those who were engaged on the side of liberty, was perhaps never exceeded on any occasion; and the names of the counsellors Davy, Glynn, Hargrave, Mansfield, and Alleyne, ought always to be remembered with gratitude by the friends of this great cause.
Volume I Chapter 111