Emancipated slaves and indentured labourers working together
5.5.1 Labour control and power
As outlined in Chapter 4, the Abolition Act of 1833 in effect prolonged the conÂdition of slavery by a number of years by keeping the emancipated slaves bound in service.
The distinction made between “praedials”[533] and “non-praedials” was designed to keep the former, which were agricultural apprentices, in longerservice, namely until 1 August 1840.[534] Non-praedials were set to be bound until 1 August 1838.[535] In the event, the British West Indies brought the entire system to an end in 1838, and following the example, Mauritius ended apprenticeships in 1839.
In his assessment of the apprenticeship system, Moses Nwulia claims that abolition effectively turned chattel slaves into serfs, which “strengthened rather than weakened the old patterns of master-servant relationships”.[536] [537] This, in his opinion, was not conducive to the emerging multi-ethnic society of Mauri- tius.50 In his assessment, Nwulia is referring to exclusively to the relationship between French planters and the former slaves, and the development of a comÂmunity where the latter would be living as free people alongside their previous subjugators. Nwulia’s argument is extended here to include the newly arrived Indian labourers of the period, who initially had to operate in the same context as apprentices.
Table 5.2 shows that after a tentative start in 1834, Indian immigration rose rapidly, reaching its first peak of close to 12,000 arrivals in 1838, just before apprenticeships came to an end the following year. The question arises how these two groups of different ethnicities coexisted, and how the planters, of yet another ethnicity, related to them.
The numbers in Table 5.3 derive from the official statistics provided by the Central Statistic Office (CSO) of Mauritius.
As can be observed, “Indians” were not counted in 1834 and 1835, even though as previously noted, a considerable Indian presence already existed and indentured immigration from the subcontiÂnent had begun in earnest. It is likely that they were counted under the rubric of “Aliens”, which the CSO however defines as “mainly Chinese and Malayans, Malagasies, and some Europeans”.[538] [539] The CSO does not provide any numbersTable 5.3 Population of Mauritius 18 34-184052
| Year | White and Free Coloured | Apprentices | Indians | Aliens | Total |
| 1834 | 26,943 | 64,331 | — | 473 | 91,747 |
| 1835 | 29,612 | 61,045 | — | 1,490 | 92,147 |
| 1837 | 31,672 | 52,616 | 11,601 | (not available) | 95,889 |
| 1838 | 37,865 | 53,230 | 23,909 | 665 | 115,669 |
Informal indenture and apprenticeships 119 for 1836. Curiously, as Table 5.3 indicates, in 1837, when 11,601 Indians had been counted, no numbers are available for “Aliens”. To ascertain an overview of the population for 1836, the Blue Book of that year has been consulted. It contains a population return of each district of Mauritius, from which it has been calculated that in 1836, the “free population” amounted to 30,411, and the “apprenticed population” 53,791.[540] Further, the return contains the observaÂtion that “European Aliens exclusive of children” amounted to 670, and that there were in fact 4,337 “Indian Labourers”.[541] This number roughly corresponds to the number of arrivals at that point, minus the departures, with allowances made for mortality and children possibly not counted.
The numbers in Table 5.3 indicate that the increase of indentured labourers was accompanied by a rapid decrease in the numbers of the apprenticed populaÂtion, which had diminished within four years from 64,331 to 53,230. The quesÂtion arises as to how the influx of new workers was affecting them.
Marina Carter has pointed out that the recourse to Indian labour was a natural choice in the case of Mauritius, given the geographical proximity as well as the planters' existing familiarity with the subcontinent. But while Indians were iniÂtially brought to simply increase the number of workers, the fact that they could be fairly easily and cheaply procured was soon utilized to the disadvantage of the local workforce.[542] Thus, what “came to be seen firstly as an insurance policy pending the freeing of apprentices” later turned into “a means of maintaining a stable wage level.”[543]
This early situation of competition and rivalry has been noted by other scholars,[544] but in contemporary records is actually strongly rebuffed, as research shows. In June 1836, the Colonial Office requested circulation of a questionnaire to ascertain the impact of the introduction of Indian labourers to Mauritius. The answers of major firms involved in sugar production such as Blyth, Son & Co. and Hunter, Arbuthnot & Co. were remarkably similar. Both confirmed that apprentices and Indian labourers, male and female, were put to work alongside each other. To the query, “Have the Apprentice Labourers on your Estate shown any Feeling of Ill-Will or Dislike to the Employment of the Indians on your HabiÂtation; and if so to what Cause do you attribute such feeling on their Part?”, the existence any ill-feeling whatsoever was emphatically denied.[545]
To be sure, both apprentices and Indian labourers were subjected to strict rules, discussed below. Yet how deep the divisions between the two communities actuÂally were is difficult to ascertain.
It is clear that any rivalry that may have existed would have been exploited by the planters, as the arrival of indentured labourers in large numbers created competition among the workforce. Sugar production became much less reliant on the availability of apprenticed workers. The decline in the number of apprentices as observable in Table 5.3 is striking, presenting a reduction of 11,101 in their population over a four-year period, with no justifiaÂble cause. The situation only sharpened after the end of the apprenticeship period and indentured immigration was formalized under a state-backed scheme. This development, occurring in the wake of the introduction of indentured labour from India, can be regarded as the beginning of the marginalization of the black community in Mauritius, which during the period of slavery presented the largest ethnic group on the island, only to diminish following their emancipation.It has been established in the previous chapters that the power balance in MauÂritius was largely tied to control over the labouring population, since it was an essential requirement in wealth creation. Both with the abolition of the slave trade and the abolition of slavery, power was being removed from the local oligarchy, with which more often than not, the local British administration had aligned itself. With the arrival of indentured labourers, the power pendulum swung back in their favour, a state of affairs that was anxiously sought to be preserved.
This is particularly illustrated by Ordinance No. 16 of 1835,[546] which the local Council of Government, or Legislative Council, purported to have passed. It will be recalled that the council was composed of local notable inhabitants appointed by the governor, all inevitably linked to the sugar interest. Through Articles 17, 18 and 24, the ordinance made all importation and deportation of workers in and from the colony subject to authorization by the governor. Such power havÂing hitherto been the exclusive prerogative of His Majesty the King, it was not well-received in London.[547] Eventually, the ordinance was disallowed, much to the dismay of Governor Nicolay.[548] A dispatch by Lord Glenelg[549] to Governor Nicolay clearly indicates the power struggle involved:
You will distinctly understand, that no Law for regulating the Relations between free Labourers and their Employers must be proposed by you, unless with the previous sanction of His Majesty to the Terms of any such Proposal; and that you are not at liberty to assent to any Law of that Nature
Informal indenture and apprenticeships 121 if proposed by any other Person, unless it contain a Clause suspending its operation until His Majesty's pleasure shall have been signified.[550]
The Colonial Office was thus anxious to maintain its influence, and not inclined to leave the important question of labour regulation to the local officials. It is possible that it feared a repeated version of what occurred in the aftermath of the 1825 equalization of sugar tariffs, discussed in the previous chapter, which led to an entirely unanticipated growth in the sugar industry, and engendered proÂfoundly negative effects for the slave population.
In Mauritius, the labour quesÂtion had been a thorny one ever since Britain sought to abolish the slave trade, with the local government often converging with the local French elite in their interest. Taking these issues into account, it is understandable that the metropolis was not to give up control over regulating the relationship between the planters and the new type of worker.5.5.2 The legal framework: apprentices
The overarching legal framework for the apprenticeship system in Mauritius derived from an Order in Council dated 17 September 1834, further to the AboÂlition of Slavery Act.[551] The Order was not easily welcomed in Mauritius. CorreÂspondence between Governor Nicolay and London indicates resistance, and even a level of insubordination, as far as the local administration was concerned. IniÂtially Nicolay sought to pass his own ordinance that would govern emancipated slaves, which was later disallowed.[552] The precise terms of the governor's own regulation do not seem to have been preserved and thus cannot be compared, however his resistance to follow directions from London is quite telling.
When the King's Order arrived in Mauritius, Nicolay provided a set of largely spurious grounds why it could not be put into effect immediately, citing the need to have it “translated into good French, an undertaking of no small magÂnitude in this Colony, where the work of the most able translator that can be found always requires most careful examination and numerous corrections”.[553] He claims that “to promulgate an Order of such extreme importance without having taken all possible precaution to ensure its correctness, might evidently be productive of serious public evil”, yet in seeking to justify why his own ordinance would remain in force until after the King's Order “shall have been duly studied and correctly prepared for promulgation”, he states that “it is very gratifying to perceive that the Order in Council and the local ordinance are in principle the same, and that the difference between them in matter of detail appear to be but
small; the transition from the one to the other will therefore be easy”,[554] thereby contradicting his earlier assertion that the Order could only be implemented after great circumspection.
The Colonial Office was evidently not impressed, for in May 1835 it disallowed three out of four locally passed ordinances, the only one passed having been one granting an extension of the period for the return of the lists of slaves.[555] Lord Glenelg took particular issue with an ordinance that sought to regulate marÂriage between apprentices, whereby the consent of the employer for such a union would be required, but whose refusal, if found inadequate, could be superseded by the consent of a special justice. The desire to control apprentice marriages again appears linked to keeping control over the labouring population. The Act abolishing slavery only turned children above the age of six into apprentices.[556] Children younger than six were free, and therefore, any later offspring would not have been “born into” apprenticeship.
With the end of the apprenticeship period, and therefore full emancipation, in sight, the regulation of marriages would not have been defensible. Glenelg himÂself felt that the “distinctions” the ordinance contained “tend to impair that great principle of legal equality between all classes of the King's subjects, whatever their origin or colour, which it is so evidently necessary to maintain.”[557] This professed desire for parity between the classes notwithstanding, the order governing the apprenticeship system showed little legal equality between emancipated slaves and their employers.
It was specified that apprentices were required to work for 45 hours per week, with heavy penalties for non-performance of duties.[558] For every hour of absence without “reasonable cause”, apprentices were required to work two extra hours, and so in proportion of for every hour missed, not exceeding 15 extra hours in any one week.[559]
A classification system was put in place to give apprentices designations signifying their level of contravention. Thus, “for absenting himself without reasonable cause for more than seven and a half hours in any one week”, the apprentice was considered a “deserter”; for such absence for two days in a week, a “vagabond”; and for more than six days in one week, he or she was declared a “runaway”.[560] The penalties were harsh: “deserters” could be conÂfined to hard labour for any amount of time not exceeding one week, while “vagabonds” could be so confined for up to two weeks and receive “any
Informal indenture and apprenticeships 123 number of stripes not exceeding 15”. Those considered “runaways” could be confined to hard labour for up to one month, and receive “any number of stripes not exceeding 30”.[561]
Punishment could also be incurred for work performed “indolently, carelessly or negligently”, on the first offence rendering the apprentice liable to extra labour not exceeding 15 hours in any one week, or for non-praedials, to whipping not exceeding 15 stripes. If the second offence occurred within two calendar months, it would draw hard labour confinement for up to one week; for the third offence, within the same time period, the apprentice would incur hard labour for up to a two weeks, “with whipping not exceeding 20 stripes.”[562] Other offences incurring punishment included “endangering the property of his employer”, “disobeying lawful commands” of the same, states of drunkenness, insolence, insubordinaÂtion, conspiracy or resistance.[563] Whipping was however restricted to males only; where women would have drawn that punishment, they were punished to conÂfinement in the stocks instead, “for no more than six days on the whole for any one offence”.[564]
In comparison, the penalties for non-performance of duties by employers towards apprentices involved a fine, or at most, a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, in the case of failure to pay the required fine in cases of serious maltreatment of apprentices only.[565]
The fundamental imbalance before the law is thus evident. The fact that nonÂperformance of duties by an apprentice, a nominally free person, could draw significant corporal punishment by his employer, for potentially light or hard-to- prove contraventions (for example, “disobedience” or “insolence”), clearly mainÂtained the power imbalance of slavery.
Similarly, the manner through which the order stipulated apprentices had to be “maintained”, namely by direct provisions or via appropriation of ground, rendered the apprentices entirely dependent on their employers for subsistence, and was thus redolent of slavery.
5.5.3 The legal framework: indentured labourers
In contrast to the position of apprentices, the working conditions of indentured labourers from India was primarily governed by the terms of the agreement they had signed. As indicated above with Ordinance No. 16 of 1835, local adminisÂtration may have sought to impose more restrictive regulations, but it seems the Colonial Office were in this instance more cognizant of the fact that these were indeed “free” workers.
The contract of those first 36 labourers arriving in 1834 is indicative of the provisions commonly contained in indenture agreements of the early period.[566] The following terms are noteworthy:
• Indenture was for a period of five years.
• Passage to Mauritius, as well as a return passage, was to be borne by the employer, unless the worker in question sought to return before the expiraÂtion of the agreed five years.
• The employing company was held responsible that the workers should not be “a burden to the Colony”, for which reason one rupee per month would be retained from pay of each person (representing one-fifth of the worker's salary), until there would be a sufficient amount to return the individual to India. Should that contingency not have had been required, the sum was to be returned at the end of the five years.
• In addition to pay, workers were to receive provisions and clothing.
• Each person received six months pay in advance.
At a first glance, these provisions appear to indicate that the situation of the Indian labourers was preferable to that of the apprentices during the same period. The realities faced by the indentured workforce will therefore be examined next.
5.6