Enforcement of the ban in practice
The 1807 Act specifically prohibited “all manners of dealing or trading” in African slaves, imposing a penalty of £100 per slave on contravention of the ban.[279] Further, it stipulated that any slave unlawfully carried would be forfeited to the king,[280] and could be taken as prize of war and be enlisted into Crown service at land or sea, or bound as an apprentice for a period not exceeding 14 years.[281] The legislation of 1807 was subsequently superseded by a similar Act in 1824,[282] extended in 1843[283]9 and consolidated again in 1873.[284]
The provisions of the 1807 Act were eventually promulgated in Mauritius in January 1813,[285] through legislation that declared the carrying-out of the slave trade a felony.[286] The concept of trading in slaves had been framed in very broad terms, effectively applying to any person resident in the British Empire who purported to
deal or trade in, purchase, sell, barter, or transfer, or contract or agree for the dealing or trading in, purchasing, selling, bartering, or transferring of any Slave or Slaves, or any Person or Persons intended to be sold, transferred, used, or dealt with as a Slave or Slaves contrary to the Prohibitions of [the 1807] Act.[287]
Successful enforcement however remained elusive in subsequent decades.
Assessing the precise dimensions in which the slave trade continued unofficially in and around Mauritius is difficult, since by definition it became clandestine.
Slave-holders were required from an early stage to provide returns on the number of slaves for tax purposes,[288] as well as keeping registers of births and deaths,[289] yet the statistics available are considered unreliable.[290] This is not surprising as slave-holders would have had little incentive to submit accurate records given their undoubted desire to avoid taxation and prevent any detection of the illicit importation of slaves. Nevertheless, the numbers that are available are striking. Proprietors’ returns and the tax collectors’ rolls indicate a slave population of 53,060 and 61,918 respectively for the year 1811, yet in 1818, the latter indicates a slave population of 80,019, with no number from proprietors’ returns given.[291] While the 1818 figure includes slaves the French were allowed to import from Madagascar following conquest, historians suspect the trade continued to an extensive degree.[292] In the most detailed piece of research on this subject to date, Richard Allen provides several estimates and sets the number of illegally introduced slaves to Mauritius and the Seychelles in the period from 1811 to 1827 at a projected 52,550.[293]Historical records, whether statistics or otherwise, are very inconsistent,[294] and given the politically charged context must be read while taking into account the circumstances and possible intentions of the source.[295] What can be said, however, is that the ban on the trade in slaves would have put in place a set of incentives, on the part of the plantation owners, to pursue a series of strategies for its avoidance, and had the potential to put the local administration and the French oligarchy at odds with one another.
3.5.1 Prize slaves
The treatment of captured slaves from trade vessels around Mauritius belied the avowed benevolent sentiments behind the ambition to abolish the slave trade. Captured slaves were not freed but retained at Port Louis, the capital. Usually described in records as “Prize Negroes”, other popular designations are “Liberated Africans” and “Apprentices”, though some historians prefer the term “Recaptives” to more accurately describe their subsequent fate.[296] Pursuant to section VII of the 1807 Act, as extended[297] and confirmed[298] in 1808 and 1817 respectively, Prize slaves were possessions of the British Crown and could be enlisted or bound as apprentices.
An examination of a document governing such service agreements provides interesting insight as to how this operated in practice.[299] Designed as a standard form to be filled out and titled an “Indenture of Two Parts”, between the Collector of Customs and the person taking on the slave, the document was to be executed in the style of a deed, in the presence of a witness. The provisions stipulated that the named “Negroe” would be “put, placed and bound” as “an Apprentice” for a term of years to be fixed, to be instructed in trade to be specified, “or as the case may be... other useful employments thereto relating, according to the usage and customs of this Colony”. Further, “said Negroe” was expected to “faithfully serve”, according to his or her “power, wits and abilities”, and “honestly and obediently in all things shall behave [him or her]-self”. The other party was held to “promise and covenant to and with His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors” that the slave would be “diligently and faithfully” instructed in the trade, provided with “sufficient and comfortable food, clothing, and other necessaries” and not treated “with hardship or severity”.
Evidently, to prevent further slave-trading, the document also stipulated that the recaptive was not to be assigned to another person, or sent to another colony, “without previous Licence”, as well as having “from time to time, as often as... shall be required by the said Collector” to be produced “for inspection and examination” at a “Return” where “a full, true and just account of the state of health, of employment and treatment” was to be rendered. A Penal Sum “being double the value of the said Negroe” would be incurred if he or she was sold on as a slave, and under the threat of forfeiture, “all the covenants” contained in the document were to be “duly and faithfully” performed.
The provisions of the contract reveal the contradictory attitudes prevailing at the time, which is arguably the result of the slave trade having had been abolished, but not slavery itself.
Slaves captured were not specified as such (the document consistently uses the term “Negroe”), yet under the legislation they were considered as belonging to the Crown. The hypocrisy inherent in designating them as “Prize” upon the interception of their illegal transportation is difficult to reconcile with the ostensibly humanitarian aims of banning the slave trade. Further, the recaptive is not a party to the agreement, which takes place between the Collector of Customs and the new “employer”, which thus affirms his or her status as chattel, the mere object of a contract, effectively reduced to an item being loaned out. Notably, this so-called “indenture”, while purporting to govern the conditions of an “Apprentice” supposedly bound for the purposes of being instructed in a “trade”, makes no mention to remuneration of any kind. Instead, the “employer” is expected to maintain the apprentice, which is more akin to the manner in which slaves were kept. The issue of wages was only addressed when slavery itself was abolished and recaptives became workers alongside emancipated slaves, who acquired the legal status of what was equally called an “apprenticeship”,[300] discussed in the next chapter. It is thus evident that the recaptive, whilst not officially designated a slave, was kept in de facto slavery. Extraordinarily, he or she entered that slavery not upon sale or transfer to a private owner, but at the point of being rescued and “freed” from the slave traders.It has been pointed out that Prize slaves in Mauritius were frequently treated worse than their counterparts,[301] despite the apparent guarantees that were to be found in the indenture agreement as outlined above. But given that unlike “actual” slaves they were not considered personal property and did not present an investment to their keeper, this lack of care towards loaned workers is not entirely surprising.
The data contained in Table 3.2, taken from the report of the Commissioners of Eastern Inquiry into the slave trade,[302] certainly indicates that recaptives were not accorded the kind of humane treatment that the legislation envisaged.
As the numbers show, during a period of 14 years, nearly 26 per cent of “apprentices” loaned out had either died since their apprenticeship or were unaccounted for, and only 0.2 per cent had achieved freedom or return to their country of origin.Table 3.2 Apprenticed Prize slaves in Mauritius between 1813 and 182789
| 2,419 | Total apprenticed out | |
| 2 | Condemned but not yet apprenticed out | |
| 2,421 | Total of which | |
| Male | Female | |
| 459 | 133 | Died since apprenticeship |
| 2 | 9 | Servitude has expired |
| 22 | 8 | Missing or unaccounted for |
| 3 | 2 | Restored as free or permitted to return to their country |
| 638 | Total | |
| 1,783 | Remaining (on 31st August 1827) | |
In practice, recaptives had one particularly important function in Mauritius - they helped alleviate the lack of available labourers that had resulted from the ban on the trade in slaves. In this context, however, Barker observes that in the period from 1813 to 1826, the employers of Prize slaves were mostly British not French - the main beneficiaries being “military and government officials, including the Chief Judge, George Smith”.[303] [304] Governor Farquhar himself was in fact “the second most prolific hirer” having received over a period 47 apprentices in total, a number exceeded only by Irish-born Charles Telfair (a notable inhabitant of the island and supposed slave-cause advocate) with 59 apprentices.[305] When viewed in the broader context of British-French antagonism, one can understand this as a small-scale initiative on the part of the British administration to wrest political and economic control of the Islands away from the French oligarchy.
In taking control of the supply of labour the British administration was effectively presented with two opportunities: The first being to dry out the supply of labour to French plantation owners and hence make them ever more dependent upon the munificence or generosity of the British administration, and the second being to use such labour for the establishment of rival economic endeavours that might ultimately undermine the French control over the economy of the island. This latter opportunity, however, was never fully to be seized in part at least because of a continued policy of conciliation on the part of the British governor Farquhar.3.5.2 Political sympathies
The interval between the abolition of the slave trade and the abolition of slavery presents a complex period in Mauritian history, for it was influenced by a number of factors: the attitude of the local British administration, Franco-Mauritian interests and British imperial policy.
The lack of success in eradicating the slave trade is invariably tied up with an appraisal of Robert T. Farquhar himself, the first British governor of the island. Farquhar held that position twice, initially from 1810 to 1817, and again from 1820 to 1823. Modern historians ignore a brief interval in 1811, when Farquhar was removed from his post and made governor of neighbouring Bourbon, with Major-General Henry Warde taking his place for three months.[306] This is surprising, for research revealed that this brief period, though otherwise unremarkable, witnessed a highly memorable event: the designation “Island of Mauritius” appears for the first time publicly in a proclamation dated 30 April 1811 signed by Governor Warde, in substitution to the hitherto used name “Ile de France”.[307] The alteration no doubt irked the French inhabitants, and it is perhaps characteristic that it was not Farquhar who effected the change in name, as their appeasement was a major feature of his administration.
Scholars are divided in their evaluation of Farquhar’s policies, with some more pronounced in their criticism of the governor’s role than others.[308] To be sure, the challenge he faced in governing the island was complex and cannot be underestimated. In assuming the governorship, Farquhar found himself in midst of a multitude of political, economic and jurisdictional conflicts. The situation in Mauritius required not only mediation between the divergent concerns of old and new colonists over the question of slavery, but also consolidation of incongruous imperial interests, which on the one side endeavoured to support and promote the economic development of the island and on the other side implementation of the Slave Trade Act. Imperial ambitions were at odds because the position of the slaves was markedly different in each context. Economically, slaves presented nothing more but an anonymous mass of labour that enabled the existence of French colonial society. Yet with the abolition of the slave trade, the hitherto deemed passive workforce acquired an identity through the introduction of accountability and control over slave-holding. Confronted with this disparity, it is
The abolition of the slave trade 69 clear Governor Farquhar made a choice to prioritize one over the other, even if not openly admitting doing so.
Six years after conquest, a proclamation confirmed that the “Letters Patent of 1723” (the Code Noir)9 remained in force with respect to the slave population,[309] [310] demonstrating the absence of any material progress as far as slavery conditions were concerned. Notably, during Farquhar’s tenure, legislation from Britain aside, no ordinances for the improvement of slave conditions were passed. A survey of the early ordinances in fact reveals repeated extensions granted by Farquhar to the French slave-holders to comply with the legal requirements of slave registration.[311] However it was not before the mid-1820s that the British Colonial Office became aware of the extent of the governor’s sympathies with the slave-holders[312], imperial attention having been focused primarily on the West Indies up to that time.[313]
In 1826 Thomas Fowell Buxton, William Wilberforce’s successor as anti-slavery spokesperson in Parliament, presented extensive information to the House of Commons on the enormous scale of the continued trade in slaves in Mauritius, the unannounced revelations taking place in Farquhar’s presence no less.[314] The by-then-former governor’s administration was subsequently put under scrutiny in a series of articles published in Zachary Macaulay’s Anti-Slavery Reporter in 1828 and 1829.[315] Not only was the absence of any protective measures towards slaves highlighted, but also Farquhar’s obvious sympathies towards the French inhabitants, which contrasted sharply with his disregard for the conditions of the former. Farquhar defended himself vigorously against the accusations, without however addressing the substantive issues of his indictment.[316] In correspondence with the Colonial Department, the former governor similarly refuted the allegations raised in the Reporter, speaking of “numerous regulations” which he had supposedly enacted for the benefit of slaves, without however providing concrete details.[317] His disdain for being held to account in this fashion is evident in the passage where he states: “It surely is not expected from me, at this time of day, neither do I consider it consistent with my own dignity, to attempt to wade in detail
through the mass of impure matter contained in the pamphlet in question”.[318] Defending himself, he resorted back to his disputed interpretation of the effects of the anti-slavery legislation in Mauritius: “The sneering and insolent remarks on the tenderness of my early friendship for the slave trade, referring to a time when the abolition Acts were not known at the Mauritius, and were not law there., though the spirit of them was acted upon my order, and upon my sole responsibility, merits little or no observation from me”.[319]
As established above, his assertion regarding the application of the Slave Trade Act was incorrect, and Farquhar must be taken to have knowingly made this misrepresentation to the Colonial Department. While he possibly could plead ignorance regarding its validity for the early days after conquest, within a few months he had been enlightened by Lord Liverpool’s dispatch. In the same memorable exchange just shortly after British takeover, Farquhar had stated the number of slaves to be 60,000,[320] yet now being questioned, 18 years later, he mentions General Decaen, the last French governor, who had left a handwritten note which set the number of slaves at the time of surrender at “upwards of 80,000”. Farquhar explains that the tax collectors’ roll return only accounted for 60,000 since the difference consisted of “the aged and the children incapable of work, for whom they were unwilling to pay.”[321] The implied assertion that in 1810 Mauritius was home to 20,000 elderly and infant slaves, who were being maintained by French colonists (themselves amounting to less than 8,000 people), despite being useless to them, is incredulous. Farquhar also stretches the truth in claiming that “there was no law at Mauritius requiring a registration of slaves... except [for] the regulation which was made upon the spot for fiscal purposes” until the relevant British order in council of 1814.[322] Despite these numerous deceptions, it does not appear that Farquhar was further questioned on the matter.
In the same year that the former governor had to face the Anti-Slavery Reporter allegations, a report on the extent of the slave trade in Mauritius was published. From 1826 to 1828, the Commissioners of Eastern Inquiry[323] had visited Mauritius to investigate the slave-trading allegations.[324] Given that no slaves were interviewed by the Commissioners, their legal status barring them from testifying on
The abolition of the slave trade 71 oath,[325] the final report must be regarded as fundamentally incomplete. Nevertheless, in 1829 the findings confirmed that the slave trade had continued on the island to a significant extent. Farquhar’s response, “after perusing it with great attention”, was to describe the Commissioners’ report as “the most inconclusive, vague, incoherent and frivolous rhapsody that was ever produced in the shape of a public document”.[326]
3.5.3 Aspiration and reality
Farquhar’s evident sympathies and resistance to being held accountable notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that a combination of facts rendered Mauritius particularly liable to a persistence in the slave trade.
In first instance, the island indeed required a supply of labour to sustain continued colonization, a matter that Farquhar sought to address. The colony’s requirement for workers was an inescapable fact. Having indicated the need for an alternative to the slave trade,[327] Farquhar requested in 1814 that convicts from India be sent to Mauritius as labourers.[328] His letter reveals his exasperation that the slave trade had not been allowed to continue in Mauritius, lamenting “the Blank which must be occasioned in our labouring population by the operation of the Slave Trade Abolition Acts”, stating further that “the abolition was expected, and gradual, in all the British possessions, and... here it was unexpected, sudden, and final”.[329] He explained that the need to borrow slaves from inhabitants as corvees for necessary public works such as road repairs were a regular, but to slave-holders unwelcome imposition. Research into the early proclamations indeed demonstrates that the call for corvees became a fixture.[330] Requesting initially 1,500 to 2,000 convicts, after being informed that a like number of such condemned prisoners did not exist, Farquhar asked for 500, balanced equally in the sexes. Since the nature of the sentence did not extend to women, in the end he had to be satisfied with approximately 236 male convict labourers, who after much care and consideration finally arrived in Mauritius in 1815.[331] Notably, contrary to
the declaration that convicts were to be employed on public works only, by May 1817 the governor had assigned nearly a third of them privately to work in the fields or as domestic servants.[332]
The most decisive influence in the continuation of the slave trade seems to have been the geographical proximity of Mauritius to eastern Africa. In this context it must be remembered that the nearby island of Bourbon was returned to France at the 1814 Treaty of Paris, where the trade thus continued to be legal for a considerable period.[333] Farquhar highlighted the issue in private correspondence over ten years after conquest when describing “the temptation” as “almost irresistible to the Planter, who regards his patrimony as dwindling to nothing, from the effects of abolition”, thus claiming that “it is difficult to prevent occasional infractions of the Laws against the Slave Trade, more especially whilst the Island of Bourbon, within our horizon, and seen from our shores, is so rapidly advancing in prosperity”.[334] He therefore underlined the need to eradicate the trade at the “source”.[335]
Governor Farquhar certainly pursued policies conceived to terminate the trade, by seeking diplomatic cooperation from the rulers in proximate regions engaged in trafficking, such as Madagascar, Zanzibar, Quiloa and Muscat, and offering trade advantages in return.[336] However, these endeavours have also been interpreted as designed primarily to further British influence in the region.[337] As observed by Barker, “a charitable view would recognize the validity of Farquhar’s attempt to cut off the slave trade at its sources, rather than risking alienation of the French plantocracy by strict measures within Mauritius”.[338] Analysis however renders the governor’s intentions questionable, and raises doubts about “not only the wisdom and efficiency, but also the honesty of his administration.”[339]
It is perhaps surprising that in the Mauritian context, having experienced a persisting slave traffic, the 1807 Act was not sought to be circumvented by
The abolition of the slave trade 73 establishing other types of labour systems common around the Indian Ocean. As mentioned at 3.3.1 above, the Indian Ocean World (IOW) knew many types of bonded labour, of which chattel slavery was just one. Others included agrestic servitude, pawnship and debt bondage.[340] The last in particular was very common in region, with persons entering in this type of servitude often voluntarily to as a way of ensuring their survival during harsh periods. With the added costs of maintaining the worker, the debt could increase dramatically and “servitude could become permanent, even hereditary, at which point there was little to distinguish debt bondage from slavery.”[341] Since this type of servitude was prevalent in the countries of southern Asia, it arguably presented an avenue that could have been employed to sidestep the provisions of the 1807 Act. While this would have still violated the spirit of the legislation, it specifically outlawed only “the African Slave Trade”,[342] and not, for example, “Asian debt bondage”. Had that kind of servile labour been sought, the argument, doctrinally at least, would have been stronger than Farquhar’s lines of reasoning which tried to justify the continued slave trade. It is outside the ambit of this study to fully investigate the question why Mauritius, as part of the IOW, only experienced slavery, a small measure of convict labour (as noted above) and indentured labour on a grand scale (as investigated in Part II), in the absence of other bonded labour systems. It does however pose an interesting query for further research.
3.6