Judicial enforcement

Expenditure on the suppression of the slave trade by the local administration was generally small, well below 5 per cent of total expenses, peaking only in 1822 and 1827 to reach nearly 12 and 10 per cent respectively.^[343] This did not aid judicial enforcement of the ban, which, perhaps unsurprisingly, proved exceedingly dif­ficult.

Despite the suspected high-volume slave traffic, condemnations and prosecu­tions were exceedingly low, as Table 3.3 shows.

Table 3.3 Slave trade returns, following British conquest until 1827¹³¹

Farquhar's role in the context of the slave trade remained controversial through­out the period, for in the same year he had to maintain his position emphatically against the Earl of Liverpool's successor, Earl Bathurst.^{[345] [346] The Earl had raised the issue of Farquhar's character in the failure to enforce the abolition laws.[347] Far­quhar defended his efforts passionately and cited the difficulties in containing the trade when he was restricted in his ability to do so.[348] Slave trade vessels in prac­tice were not seizeable beyond “a hundred paces from the Sea side”, and liability}

The abolition of the slave trade 75 of the captain was avoided by the frequent use of “nominal captains”, with the real captain travelling as a member of the crew, which was not accountable.^[349] After being condemned, a vessel would be sold at auction, invariably to its former owner.^[350] The last practice was a courtesy that the French inhabitants customarily extended to each other, a kind of protectionism that also seems is evident in the jury acquittals indicated by Judge Smith.

Congruent with the overarching argument advanced in this study, Lau­ren Benton argues that the abolition of the slave trade across the empire “reflected and reinforced pressures to strengthen imperial legal authority.”^[351] According to her, in the broader project of consolidating legal order, the ban acted as a form of control by the imperial state.

Farquhar's successors, especially those who took over in the interim period between his two tenures, demonstrated a different approach, notably Major­General Gage John Hall (from November 1817 to December 1818) and Major­General Ralph Darling (from February 1819 to July 1820).^[353] They preferred to submit certain cases concerning the violation of the slave trade laws to the Privy Council in London, an overview of which may illustrate the attitudes of the French inhabitants and the British on the matter.

One of these is the case of Monneron.^[354] In 1818, Jacques Aristide Monneron, a young man less than 20 years of age, found himself arrested on the felony of slave trafficking, following the inception of two young boys, who he had sent with a letter to his mother informing her of his “troubles” with the British, requesting her to shelter his slaves. As a consequence of that letter, British Forces attended at the estate of Madame Monneron, where they discovered a temporary build­ing that housed a large number of evidently newly imported slaves. New slaves were said to be “very easy” to identify, from their condition (often suffering from

“the itch”, i.e., small pox), their demeanour (a fragile mental state, evident from being easily startled) and most obviously perhaps, their inability to converse in French.^[355]

Special slave trade jurisdiction rested with the local Vice-Admiralty Court,^[356] and the chief judge as well as the governor were Commissaries of the Court.^[357] A right to appeal to the Privy Council had been established early in the island, though appeals were primarily made to the governor.^[358] As such, Governor Hall could have intervened in Monneron's case, but he declined to act and recommended the matter be referred to London.^[359] From the case papers it can be deduced that while the evidence, which included unsworn slave testimony, had been heard by the Privy Council, after 12 months imprisonment on indictment, Monneron was sent back to Mauritius.

The proceedings of Monneron's case appear futile and unnecessarily circu­lar. There existed however definite reasoning behind such referrals to the Privy Council, as elucidated by Governor Darling in the context of another case passed

The abolition of the slave trade 77 to London the same year.^[364] Admitting to “being fully aware of the inconvenience which must be occasioned by sending these people to England”, he nevertheless deemed it “a matter of indispensable necessity”. According to Darling,

were these people, or in fact any others, concerned in the slave trade, to be brought to trial here, they would to a certainty be acquitted, which such a result would at once prove the impotence of the Government, or the insuffi­ciencies of the Laws, and serve to give fresh life and vigour to a system which can only be suppressed by extraordinary exactions.^[365]

Darling's contemplations are evidently plausible, and the practice appears to serve as a means by which imperial control could be consolidated through restricting the rights of slave-holders. By transferring the issue of judicial enforce­ment to London however, the local administration missed the opportunity to reinforce British rule locally. If the court system, dominated by French influ­ence as it was, proved ill-equipped to give effect to British policy and legislation aimed at abolishing the slave trade, the situation provided obvious incentive for a reform of the judicature. Reconstruction was however forgone in favour of keeping the status quo, while drawing authority from the metropolis. If, in the process, imperial control was enhanced, it came at the cost of a weakening of the local administration.

3.7