The prelude to abolition: amelioration

The idea of “amelioration” implies gradations in the severity of slavery, the determination of which may appear useful for the purpose of hypothetical dis­cussion, but in reality can lead to a certain degree of incoherence.

unquestioned and can even amount, with its apologist undertones, to a justifi­cation of slave-holding practices.

It is precisely the notion that gradations in harshness exist which drove the idea of an “improved” slavery. The fallacy of the concept however became apparent in its practical implementation.

4.4.1 The implementation of British policies

In May 1823 the House of Commons adopted several resolutions for ameliorat­ing slavery conditions which were communicated by Lord Bathurst to Governor Cole^[427] (Farquhar’s immediate successor) shortly afterwards.^[428] These included, amongst other things, that there should be an absolute prohibition on the flog­ging of female slaves. The example serves to gauge Cole’s attitude with respect to ameliorative measures. His stance has been described as “cynical”^[429] by Nwulia in light of the fact that the governor took more than three years following Lord Bathurst’s instructions to issue a circular which advised to limit the flogging of females to “extraordinary cases”.^[430]

The governor’s attitude is actually better described as one of contempt and indifference, for not only was Cole’s act late and devoid of legal force, the language he used pandered to the planters' interests, lacking conviction or clear intent.

It must, in fact, be admitted, that the weakness of their sex and public decency would seem to require, that Negro-women should undergo the lash only in extraordinary cases, and with the concurrence of the local authority. Do not irons, the stocks, imprisonment, offer sufficient means of punishing a Negro-woman, whose condition, besides being almost always precarious, requires great care? Avail yourselves, Gentlemen, of your influence with your fellow-country men, to prevail upon them to give up, of their own accord, the use of flogging in respect to female Slaves.

Governor Cole's actual view on the matter, however, is revealed in a dispatch to Lord Bathurst composed merely days later:^[432]

From the great numerical disproportion which exists between the male and the female slaves of this colony, a very general promiscuous intercourse pre­vails, which naturally debases the latter; and in many instances their conduct in every respect is fully as bad as that of the worst of the male slaves; therefore although I admit that the abolishing of corporal punishment, in the cases of female slaves, is highly desirable, yet I conceive that bad consequences might result from its immediate prohibition.

Cole's administration, in general terms, showed remarkably little commitment to the slave cause and, like that of Farquhar before him, attended more to the needs or interests of the French plantocracy. This is particularly evident in Ordi­nance No. 20 of 1826, which regulated the use of chains and fetters on slaves.^[433] Adopted on the same day as Ordinance No. 19, which granted yet another exten­sion to the deadline by which slave returns had to be supplied,^[434] the chain ordi­nance gave sanction to a cruel system of punishment, and arguably widened it. As stated in the ordinance's preamble, Article 37 of the Lettres Patent of 1723 (i.e., the Code Noir) already allowed the use of chains for punishment, but did not specify their weight, an oversight this ordinance ostensibly sought to rectify.^[435]

Ordinance No.

Contravention of the law, whether by “the Proprietor, the Overseer, Superin­tendent or Holder of Slaves under whatsoever Title”, would attract a penalty, not exceeding 10 pounds sterling and not less than 40 shillings on the first offence, and no more than 20 pounds and not less than 10 pounds on the second. In practice, this “ameliorative” measure did not do much to deter slave-holders. It effectively confirmed their rights to use chain and fetters, and with the laxity of the rules, Governor Cole furthermore conveyed the impression that ameliorative measures could be adjusted to suit slave-holders, which amounted to “a subtle defiance of authority that the grateful planters did not fail to notice.”^[437] A similarly covert subversion of instructions from Britain occurred in the context of the prohibition of Sunday work, already banned by the Code Noir, but left at the dis­cretion of the planters “when circumstances require it”, as outlined in another of Cole's Circulars which allowed slave-holders to circumvent the regulations with relative ease.^[438] Governor Cole's main measures thus did not aid the conditions of slaves, and they may have arguably acted to worsen them since the local French planters knew that at least the local British administration was on their side and would not seriously interfere with their slave-holding practices.

Cole's successor, Governor Colville,^[439] came to preside over the island at a period of heightened sensibilities.

The abolition of slavery 93 the king would not confirm the chain ordinance, expressing surprise and concern at the enactment, as well as regret that Cole had not abolished the use of chains and fetters altogether, noting that in the West Indies their use “had been very generally, if not universally, prohibited under severe penalties.”^[441] Having received specimens from the Commissioners of Inquiry,^[442] Murray observed that “they appear, in reality, to be nothing less than instruments of torture.”^[443] This senti­ment was repeated by Viscount Goderich^[444] almost three years later, reiterating Murray's words and declaring that those chains from Mauritius “remain in this office a visible and irrefragable argument in favour of that change in the law”, which Murray directed Colville to enact.^[445] Colville's failure to do so over a pro­longed period is reflective of the similar approach he took to his predecessor in governing the island.

On the recommendation of the Commissioners of Inquiry, a new, and as far as the plantation owners were concerned, decidedly more intrusive, ame­liorative measure was taken: the creation of the office of a Protector of Slaves. Previously, the duties of protector and guardian of slaves fell on the Pro- cureur General, an arrangement deriving originally from the Mauritian Code Noir, and maintained and confirmed by an ordinance issued by Governor Cole in 1827.^[446]

Ordinance No. 43 of 1829^[447] created a separate of office of Protector of Slaves, a post held for the entire duration of its existence, until the abolition of slav­ery, by R.M. Thomas, an official sent from Britain. Thomas' understanding of his role is articulated in his preliminary notes prefacing his first report, where he recounts events which occurred shortly after his arrival in Mauritius:^[448] After having announced his intention to visit the different districts, Thomas found himself confronted with a delegation of concerned planters, whom he placated by explaining that

although it would be his duty to protect the slaves from any oppression or injury to which their unfortunate situation might expose them, and in all cases to obtain for them strict justice, yet it was not intended that

he should defend their cause, right or wrong; on the contrary, it would be his special care to impress upon their minds, that the measure of pro­tection afforded to them would be proportionate to their good conduct, industry and obedience to their masters.^[449]

These words as well as their subsequent implementation have led Thomas to be described as a “disciplinarian” rather than a “protector” of slaves.^[450]

An examination of the complaints contained in Thomas' first report, and how these were dealt with, does indeed question the very name of his office, as Table 4.4 indicates.

Notably, unlike in cases where a complaint was outright “dismissed”, if a griev­ance had been declared “unfounded”, the slave in question suffered severe pun­ishment. For the period at hand, such a penalty was waived in only two instances at the request of the slave-holder.

A set of examples has been selected below to illustrate the risk as well as the futility that existed in addressing the so-called “Protector of Slaves”:

Complaint No. 19 involved a slave named Zephirin and seven others, the grievance in question being an insufficiency of food. The resolution was as follows: “This complaint being proved to be entirely false and malicious, the Protector, to mark his displeasure at this attempt to impose upon him, directed each of the individuals complaining to receive 30 stripes of the cat- o'nine-tails on the habitation of their master, and in the presence of their comrades.”^[451] [452]

Complaint No. 21, regarding a slave named Cupidon, who similarly reported an insufficiency of food as well as severe punishment, is sum­marized thus: “Cupidon, who was sent to the civil hospital died there on

Table 4.4 Protector of slaves report, 20 March-24 June 1829⁸⁷

The abolition of slavery 95 the 26th April; not from any punishment inflicted upon his person, but (according to the opinion of the medical officer in charge of that estab­lishment) from a depraved habit of body, paralysis, and other constitu­tional causes.”^[453] Further details on the case indicate that upon receiving notice of Cupidon's death, Protector Thomas simply informed the slave­holder that he had passed away, and “thus terminated the investigation of the matter.”^[454]

Complaint No. 35 concerned a slave named Rosalie, who objected to being ill-treated and over-worked for her constitution. “Rosalie's complaint of ill treatment being unfounded, but her state of health somewhat delicate, she was returned to her master under a promise of giving her medical assistance and careful treatment, and of not employing her in any work until she shall be recovered.”^[455]

The last example in particular demonstrates that the Protector was disinclined to make an official finding against slave-holders despite evidence that would justify such a finding, and even while seeking to hold in favour of a slave. As the case of Zephirin shows, by having the slave punished in front of his comrades, Protec­tor Thomas also sought to make public examples which communicated how he perceived his role, effectively discouraging slaves from approaching him. Since the majority of complaints led to even more maltreatment in the form of pun­ishment, Thomas made his stance on the slave cause very clear. Cupidon's case shows that even where the death of a slave evidently appears to have been caused by the owner, the Protector did not regard it as necessary to make a referral for prosecution, possibly concluding that with the complainant's death, “protection” was no longer required.

Despite Thomas' obvious sympathy with slave-holders, their cooperation with the Protector's Office remained limited. As time went on, Thomas repeatedly noted in his observations how difficult his role was, how little regard the Pro- cureur General paid to this referrals, and how the list of those defaulting to com­ply with the regulations regarding punishment records and other slave returns kept ever growing.^[456]

For the slave-holders in Mauritius, British ameliorative measures amounted in practice to not much more than an inconvenience to be circumvented. The met­ropolitan government, largely due to the failures of British administrators locally, did not succeed in positively impacting conditions of slave-keeping in Mauri­tius. Recent research reinforces the impression that slave-holders were largely unimpressed by British measures. Examining succession and bankruptcy sales via

public auction as evidenced through notarial acts, the work of Shirley Chenny, Pascal St-Amour and Desire Vencatachellum appears to suggest that the aboli­tion of slavery was not expected during the mid- to late 1820s. Observing steady prices in slave sales, the scholars reason that had emancipation been expected, slave prices would have decreased.^[457] In this context, it is perhaps unsurprising that intensification of ameliorative measures lead to a planter rebellion in Mauritius.

4.5