The British
The last two decades of French rule saw Mauritius gaining importance as a base for privateering with France and Britain at war.[147] Noting the considerable commercial losses to Britain,[148] Auguste Toussaint nevertheless asserts that “the exploits of the privateers were never a serious threat to British power in the Indian Ocean.”[149] Achieving control of the Cape in 1806, Britain was able to regulate the route to the Mascarenes, creating a blockade and leading an offensive that led to Bourbon's capitulation in July 1810.
While the French side won the famous Battle of Grand Port during August 1810,[150] the episode left them unable to withstand a renewed attempt, and a few months later, on 3 December 1810, Mauritius capitulated.[151] The Terms of Capitulation, as discussed in Chapter 3, would prove relevant for decades to come.2.5.1 Mauritius in the British Empire
British possession of Mauritius was confirmed through Article 8 of the 1814 Treaty of Paris,[152] which was subsequently proclaimed on the island.[153] Bourbon, in contrast, was returned to France. Sources from the period convey the impression that the capture of Mauritius was deemed an important success for the British.[154] For instance, Lieutenant Commander Henry Keating who was involved in the conquest describes the island as “a valuable Prize”, for which “General Decaen did not indulge us even with a sharp fight”.[155]
After the departure of the French troops (occurring not without Decaen at the point of setting sail “vent[ing] his spleen against the British Government in terms of profaness and vulgarity”[156]), the first British governor of Mauritius, Robert T. Farquhar, lost no time in requiring the French inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance.[157] Regarding its performance as a “sacred bond which can alone unite the subjects of a conquered country to its new Sovereign by its indispensable ties of fidelity”,[158] he was faced for years to come with a resistance to comply, as evidenced in subsequent proclamations.[159] This is reflective of an enduringly tense relationship between the old and new colonists, investigated in detail in Chapters 3 and 4.
Dayachand Napal states that “the people of the island did not have any affection for their conquerors who had become their masters overnight at the stroke of a pen.”[160] His assertion regarding the population’s dislike of the new colonial rulers seems to apply particularly to the French inhabitants who harboured the hope that the Ile de France would at some point be returned to their motherland. The British however, having reintroduced the name “Mauritius” given by the Dutch, ruled until independence.
As far as the non-white inhabitants were concerned, it appears that the British takeover was initially welcomed.[161] However it soon became evident that whilst Governor Farquhar was keen to employ a “conciliatory approach” towards the French, that affability did not extend as far as the slaves, for their situation did not materially improve.[162] For them, the experience was thus one of continuity of the colonial situation where disadvantage persisted even whilst the identity of the colonizer changed.[163]
How did this French-dominated colony fit within the British Empire? The concept of a unitary British Empire has a tendency to obscure the human aspect behind it.[164] Colonial politics were influenced by several protagonists, including officials, migrants and missionaries. Control of the empire at any one time was therefore disorganized and tumultuous, and in the words of John Darwin, “to suppose that an order uttered in London was obeyed around the world by zealous proconsuls is an historical fantasy (although a popular one).”[165]
In the 19th century the British Empire consisted of three separate, but not mutually exclusive, parts: the white settlements, the territories that had been conquered or acquired during wartimes, and later, India. As such, there was not one principal section of government in charge of the Empire, but several, whose powers and responsibilities fluctuated over time according to need.[166]
The general principle was that colonies were mainly governed locally and not from London.[167] Mauritius had a governor heading a local administration installed within days of capitulation,[168] thus removing immediate responsibility from the metropolis.
The Colonial Office influenced legislation only indirectly, such as through its refusal of assent to orders and proclamations.[169] The process of ratifying, amending or rejecting legislation was however perceived as a significant form of control, since “even the local governor could not be entrusted with authority to give final assent to colonial bills; and colonial laws which attempted to give him such authority were open to the strongest objections.”[170] Two manners of review existed: judicial and administrative. The latter was preferred, since it allowed for the legislation to be examined before it came into operation. The problem posed by the former is of course that it required the law to be already in force. Most laws reviewed were already effective, however, the Royal Instructions reserved Crown assent for politically and legally sensitive bills, with the effect that they were scrutinized before passing into law.[171]In Mauritius, the question of legislation was closely linked to the Terms of Capitulation, and in particular Article 8, which sought to preserve local laws and customs. The issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this study. From a modern perspective, Article 8 of the Capitulation can be considered as the founding aspect of the Mauritian legal system, since the Napoleonic Codes still apply and were during British rule curiously supplemented with English provisions and enforced through English procedure. It has been estimated that the modern body of law is approximately two-thirds of British origin and one-third French.[172] This has created a working legal system today which domestically is no longer considered French-British, but thoroughly Mauritian.[173]
Vijaya Teelock argues that the uniqueness of Mauritius among Britain's 19th century possessions is reflected in how it originally came to be administered “as part of an ill-assorted, disparate group”, namely Ceylon, New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land.[174] Culturally different, Mauritius was considered neither part of East Africa nor South Asia, nor was it at that point a major sugar-producing colony alongside the West Indies.[175]
The latter description was about to change when in 1815 Mauritius was granted Crown Colony status, and hence on, it was able to export its sugar to Britain at a considerably preferential rate of duty.[176] This provided the impetus to grow the sugar industry as described next.
2.5.2 The role of the sugar industry
British imperial policy regarding Mauritius is inextricably linked to the sugar economy. Being the reason that required the availability of coercible labour, an understanding of the development of the industry underlies any discussion on slavery and indenture. Table 2.1 illustrates this point.
Table 2.1 Sugar production in imperial tons for the main British sugar-producing colonies, 18 1 6-18 6081
| Mauritius | Jamaica | British Guiana | Barbados | Trinidad | St. Vincent | |
| 1816-1820 | 20,874 | 407,626 | 113,962 | 61,982 | 36,103 | 61,948 |
| 1821-1825 | 55,624 | 353,875 | 159,136 | 59,048 | 41,830 | 61,589 |
| 1826-1830 | 142,500 | 347,106 | 279,780 | 68,264 | 59,881 | 66,727 |
| 1831-1835 | 167,755 | 329,478 | 272,340 | 85,775 | 77,735 | 50,479 |
| 1836-1840 | 165,138 | 216,423 | 220,947 | 94,715 | 70,408 | 42,274 |
| 1841-1845 | 173,408 | 165,865 | 162,687 | 79,960 | 76,484 | 31,929 |
| 1846-1850 | 291,610 | 158,005 | 173,390 | 109,428 | 96,454 | 37,366 |
| 435,193 | 126,812 | 222,273 | 158,296 | 118,148 | 35,918 | |
| 1856-1860 | 601,137 | 114,943 | 299,070 | 160,435 | 127,187 | 32,088 |
Prima facie, a number of observations can be made from the data:
1 The initial expansion of the Mauritian sugar economy occurred at an extraordinary pace, achieving a seven-times greater output within a decade (from the period of 1816-1820 to 1826-1830).
2 The period of 1836-1840, which coincided with the abolition of slavery in 1834-1835 and the end of apprenticeships by 1838-1839, saw the West Indies suffer a significant drop in sugar production, unlike Mauritius which remained stable.
(Note that despite the cumulative spike in Barbados for the same period, production more than halved from 23,679 tons in 1838 to 10,374 tons in 1840.[177] [178])3 By the 1840s, Mauritius had overtaken the other colonies to become the chief sugar-producing colony of the British Empire.
Certain circumstances were responsible for aiding this development.
Even prior to the emancipation of slaves, the sugar industry of the West Indies found itself in recession, having expanded during wartime and obliged to face falling prices after the peace of 1815.[179] A further nail in the coffin was when in 1825, Mauritius achieved parity in export tariffs, allowing Mauritian sugar to enter the British market with the same level of duty as imposed upon sugar from the West Indies, thus forming part of a “preferential group” (later joined by the East Indian colonies) in contrast to other producers within and outside the empire.[180]
In addition to the decline in profits, heavy indebtedness, particularly in the form of mortgages, added considerably to the distress of the West Indies.[181] Most of the mortgagees were City of London firms.[182]
With the abolition of slavery, sugar plantations were deprived of the cheap labour they required. As examined in Chapter 5, during the apprenticeship period, Mauritius had already begun to introduce indentured labourers from India to take the place of former slaves on the fields. It has been argued that indentured labour has been indeed the reason why Mauritius was able to withstand the setbacks caused in other colonies by abolition and expand its sugar economy beyond.[183] In this context, it is noteworthy that British Guiana, the second-largest recipient of indentured labour from India after Mauritius, established itself in the 1840s as the second-largest sugar producer of the British colonies, as evident from Table 2.1.
With respect to the West Indian decline, it also appears that Mauritius not only competed for the same market, but also for the same investment, as the evidence in a Select Committee Report of 1848 suggests.
To the question whether excessive debt prevented sugar estates from employing the required labour, MatthewJ. Higgins, a proprietor in Demerara, answered:
I do not think that is the reason. I think the reason is, that few, if any capitalists previously unconnected with the West Indies have sent any capital out there during the last 10 years, because there was no chance of it fructifying. They preferred India and the Mauritius, where labour was less interfered with.[184]
Upon the abolition of slavery in 1834, £20 million was made available to compensate the slave-holders. Mauritius received just over £2 million. Around £17 million went to the West Indies, of which a considerable amount was used to settle the debts that had encumbered the sugar estates.[185] In such instances, the money was thus effectively returned back to London. By contrast, the early immigration of indentured labourers to Mauritius was very likely funded by the slave compensation.[186] Informally introduced from 1834 onwards, and on a large
Historical background 43 scale with government support beginning in 1842, contract workers from India had replaced slaves on the sugar cane fields.
The production of sugar in Mauritius remained in the hands of the white population, and in particular the French (descendants of early settlers and expatriates), who having cultivated an elite community, dominated every aspect of public life as well as the economy.[187]
Having attracted considerable British investment as a consequence of sugar industry’s growing expansion, the French plantation owners were able to promote their interests in the metropolis. Thus, “British capitalists, in alliance with Franco-Mauritian planters, appointed British Members of Parliament as their political agents in London and formed pressure groups to lobby for the cause of the sugar industry with the Colonial Office.”[188] Their wealth and status rested to an ability to maintain production as well as access to the British market.
As noted by Patrick Neveling, “the hierarchy that positioned the French colonisers as the subjects of British rule was to determine the patterns of struggles within the local society and economy for decades to come”, and the steps to integrate Mauritian sugar production into the empire’s system, including the abolition of slavery, must be understood as the actual steps of incorporating Mauritius into the dominant capitalist system of the time, namely Britain’s empire.[189] Neveling’s observation is congruent with an argument advanced in this study. As will become evident in subsequent chapters, the legal process of ameliorating the conditions of plantation labour, whether in the context of slavery or indentured labour, can be interpreted as repetitive steps to transfer power from the local French elite to the British imperial government.
The firm establishment of indentured labour in Mauritius, investigated in Chapter 6, coincided with a number of other socioeconomic changes within the empire. In 1846, the Sugar Duties Act was passed in Britain, effecting a gradual removal of all duties on sugar, and forcing British colonies to compete with exports from countries that still employed slavery, such as Brazil and Cuba. The financial crisis of the late 1840s, the dramatic rise of continental sugar production from beet in the 1850s, and a renewed commitment to free trade in subsequent decades, all contributed to a modification in attitudes and interests in British imperial policy in the second part of the 19th century.[190]
2.6