Session 4a

Historical demography Demsa 2002 Proceedings 

Thursday 26th September SESSION 3(B) 

14:00 -15:30 SOG: ROOM:1 F SESSION 3B HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY (PARALLEL SESSION) 

Chair 

14:00- 14:15 Peerthum Satyendra UCT Gauging the pulse of freedom 

14:15- 14:30 Rama Prabha UWC Breeders or workers: slave women in the Cape Colony 

14:30- 14:45 Teelock Vijaya Univ Mauritius Collecting and disseminating slave demographic information in Mauritius 

14:45- 15:05 Valentine Barbara Itec Age and height among slaves in Mauritius, 1835 

15:05- 15:15 van Heyningen Elizabeth Discussant 

15:15- 15:30 Discussion 

1

2 Session 3 (b)

Historical demography 

“Gauging the Pulse of Freedom”: 

A Study of Manumission in Mauritius, the 

Cape Colony, and Jamaica during the Early 

Nineteenth Century: 

A Comparative Perspective 

By Satyendra Peerthum, 

University of Mauritius. 

Gauging the Pulse of Freedom 

Abstract 

The objective of this research paper is to compare and contrast the 

manumission rates and patterns of Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and 

Jamaica between the 1810s and the early 1830s. By analysing these 

manumission rates and patterns, this study tries to indicate in which 

slave society, the slaves stood the best chance of obtaining their freedom 

through manumission. Within a comparative framework, it looks at 

urban and rural manumission, male and female manumission, the 

manumission of creole and foreign-born slaves as well as gratuitous and 

bought manumissions in these three slave societies. This research paper 

also examines the manumission patterns among the different segments 

of the slave populations of Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica. 

Furthermore, it also carries out a thorough demographic analysis of the 

slave populations of these three British colonies. It focuses a great deal 

on the impact of British slave amelioration legislation on these three 

slave societies through the liberalization of the colonial manumission 

laws and the work of the Protector of Slaves in this important process. 

This research paper shows that during the 1820s and early 1830s, in 

Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica, an increasing number of 

slaves were purchasing their freedom. It also highlights the fact that 

during this period, thousands of slaves were able to secure their freedom 

before the abolition of slavery. This study analyses the social and 

economic factors which influenced the manumission rates and patterns 

in these three slave societies. 

3

4 Satyendra Peerthum 

Session 3 (b) 

Introduction: Manumission 

and the Openness of Slave Societies 

During the second half of the twentieth century, the comparative studies 

of New World slave societies “have used manumission rates as a cornerstone 

for the argument that Latin American slavery was a much more fluid 

and open institution” than slavery in the American South and the British 

Caribbean islands. 1 In 1947, Frank Tannenbaum was the first American 

slave historian to discuss the concept of the openness of slave societies. He 

carried out a comparative study of Brazilian slavery with North American 

slavery. Tannenbaum came to the conclusion that the slaves in Brazil had 

more opportunities of being manumitted and in achieving social mobility 

than the slaves in the American South. Therefore, the extent to which 

freedom was accessible to the slaves, through manumission, has been 

considered by slave historians as one of the crucial indicators (or indexes) 

of the openness of a slave society. 2 A slave society with low manumission 

rates, or where manumissions were not frequent, was a clear indicator that 

the slaves in that society had extremely few chances of becoming free and 

in achieving some type of social mobility. But, at the same time, a slave 

society with high levels of manumission, or where manumissions were very 

frequent, shows that the slaves in that society had much greater chances of 

becoming free and in achieving social mobility. Thus, a slave society with 

high manumission rates was seen as a more open slave society than one 

with low manumission rates. 3 South African historians such as Robert 

Shell, Richard Elphick, and Nigel Worden have also used manumission 

rates to show that a closed and rigid slave colonial society existed, during 

the eighteenth century, at the Cape of Good Hope under VOC rule. 4 

David Brion Davis, a famous slave historian, explains that “the ease and 

frequency of manumission” seem to provide the “crucial standard in 

measuring the relative harshness of slave systems”. 5 According to him, 

manumission rates, or the number of slaves freed in a slave society each 

year or over a number of years, provided the yardstick with which one 

could measure the harshness of slavery in slave societies. But Eugene 

Genovese, another well known American slave historian, points out, in his 

famous criticism of Davis’ observation on manumission, that it is extremely 

difficult to make a judgment and to measure the severity and harshness of 

slave systems. The best historians can do is to contrast and to “compare 

specific kinds of treatment and their consequences, instead of trying to use 

a single standard of judgment”. 

In a very influential article on the application of the comparative method 

to different slave societies, Genovese distinguished between three meanings 

of the treatment of slaves in the slave societies. The first involved the 

“day-to-day living conditions” which included such things as housing and 

working conditions as well as quality and quantity of food and clothing. 

The second one was their “conditions of life”, or in other words, the 

conditions of the lives of the slaves pertaining to such things as opportunities 

for independent social, religious, and family life as well as family 

security and the evolution of cultural developments. The third and last one 

deals with “access to freedom and citizenship” or the access of the slaves 

to freedom and citizenship in different slave societies. 6 Robert Shell explains 

that in: 

“Genovese’s view this was the critical aspect of the treatment of all slaves 

everywhere” and “scholars of comparative slavery should evaluate the 

harshness or otherwise of slavery according to these criteria: they should 

never confuse them”. 7 

For his part, Nigel Worden explains that during the 1700s and early 

1800s, one of the markers of the way in which the slaves were treated in 

Mauritius and the Cape Colony was their “access to freedom” through 

manumission and also “the status of the freed slaves”. 8 

This conference paper will focus on the access of the Mauritian, Cape, 

and Jamaican slaves to freedom, through manumission. However, this 

research paper also clearly acknowledges the fact that the analysis of 

manumission rates must also be combined with “an analysis of the quality 

of the ex-slaves’ freedom”. 9


Quantitative History & Its Application 

Quantitative history, or “history by numbers”, is based on the belief that 

“in making quantitative statements, historians should take the trouble to 

count rather” than “content themselves with impressionistic estimates”. 

During the twentieth century, almost all the branches of historical research 

have been affected by quantitative history such as economic, social, and 

demographic history. Basically, when historians use quantitative methods 

The growth of the Caribbean 

plantation culture 

Jamaica in 1710 

(above) 

and in 1790 

(below). 

Each dot equals 

one plantation 

Source: Michael Craton, Searching for the Invisible Man, pages 12-13. 

in their books and articles, there is a fundamental shift from focusing on 

individuals to masses, since they use numbers to study whole groups of 

people. Furthermore, last forty years, computers and computer programs 

developed very rapidly and they became cheaper and more accessible to 

historians. It became much easier to feed, process, and analyse statistical 

data which allowed for quantitative exercises. Thus, gradually, the use of 

quantitative methods became an integral part of historical research. 10 


One of the criticisms that has been brought against the use of this method 

is that “by emphasizing the common factors in mass behaviour, at the 

expense of the individual and the exceptional, has a ‘dehumanizing’ effect 

on history”. In addition, some traditional historians have also argued that 

the use of quantitative history in academic studies is that it “distorts our 

view of the past by directing attention to those sources which readily 

respond to statistical analysis at the expense of those which do not”. 11 

Therefore, what is often implied by traditional historians, who are often 

critical of quantitative history, is that it uses a limited number of primary 

sources and gives a limited view of history. 12 

But John Tosh explains: 

It is sometimes imagined that the application of quantitative methods 

on a large scale displaces traditional skills of the historian and calls 

for an entirely new breed of scholar. Nothing could be further from 

the truth. Statistical know-how can only be effective if it is treated as 

an addition to the historian’s tool-kit, and subject to the normal 

controls of historical method. 13 

After all, over the decades, historians have gradually recognized the 

contribution which quantitative history can make to traditional historical 

approaches and explanations. Indeed, social historians can carry out indepth 

studies of certain societies, such as colonial slave societies, by 

drawing their information from archival documents and other primary 

sources, while at the same time, supplementing their findings with quantitative 

analysis of the figures which may be found in some of these 

sources. 14 This is precisely the aim of this chapter on quantitative 

manumission. 

John Marincowitz accurately explains: “ ‘Quantitative history’ and ‘People’s 

history’ need not be conflicting historical methods”. 15 In order to 

give substance to this argument, it is important to point out that, in recent 

decades, a large number slave studies have been produced and “the most 

important developments in quantitative historical methods have been 

disproportionately concentrated in this area”. During the 1960s and after, 

5



most of the slave studies which have used quantitative methods have 

concentrated on the Atlantic slave trade and the slave societies of the 

Americas. 16 

In 1969, in The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census, Philip Curtin carried out 

estimates of the number of slaves who were shipped from Africa to the 

New World slave societies between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. 

17 Just five years later, R.W. Fogel and S.L. Engerman, two American 

intellectuals, published their two volume book, Time on the Cross, which 

is still considered to be a controversial work. Over the course of several 

years, these two historians examined and gathered statistical data from 

plantation records, probate records, census schedules, and other primary 

sources. By using the statistical data from these sources, Fogel and 

Engerman put forward certain controversial conclusions. These two American 

historians concluded that in the mid-1800s, the white planters of the 

American South formed part of a humane and rational capitalist class and 

that their slaves were a well-treated and prosperous labour-force. 18 

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, slave studies gradually began to 

focus on other parts of Africa such as East Africa, South Africa, Mauritius, 

and Madagascar. 19 It is evident that quantitative history has had a huge 

impact on some of the historians who have written on slavery in Mauritius, 

the Cape Colony, and Jamaica. In Mauritian slave historiography, this can 

be seen in the works of Rene Kuczynski, Brenda Howell, Daniel North- 

Coombes, Anthony Barker, Vijaya Teelock, and Richard B. Allen. In Cape 

slave historiography, this fact is clearly reflected in the books and articles 

of Robert Shell, Robert Ross, Nigel Worden, Mary Rayner, and Andrew 

Bank. In Jamaican slave historiography, this can also be seen in the academic 

studies of Barry Higman, William Green, and others (Refer to 

Endnotes). Therefore, slave historians can use quantitative history to gain 

a greater understanding of the slave populations and the slave societies 

they are studying. 20 The most important and greatest contribution of 

quantitative history has been made in the field of demographic history. 21 

It is the premise of this conference paper that a better understanding can 

be reached about the slave populations of Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and 

Jamaica, by analyzing the statistical data from the manumission records 

which can be used to reinforce the information from other primary 

sources. 22 Thus, in order to get a clearer picture of the slave populations 

as well as the slave societies of Mauritius, the Cape, and Jamaica, mostly 

between the 1810s and early 1830s, the author has resorted to using 

quantitative manumission which falls within the sphere of quantitative 

history. 23 

John Tosh eloquently explains: “at its most ambitious, quantitative history 

seeks to elucidate an entire historical process by measuring” and comparing 

certain relevant factors. 24 This research paper tries to use quantitative 

history to shed some light on a number of questions such what were the 

manumission rates in Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica during the 

early nineteenth century? To what extent can manumission rates be used 

as one of the major indicators of the openness of a slave society? What 

were some of the manumission patterns among the different segments of 

the slave population? Who were the slaves who bought their freedom and 

which slaves stood the best chance of being manumitted? Finally, what 

was the impact of the liberalization of manumission process during the late 

1820s and early 1830s? 25 

When using quantitative history in a study, it is important first to establish 

the reliability and comparability of the statistical data and it is essential 

that, “the historian seeks out data from varied and scattered source materials”. 

Once the historian has analyzed the sources and has recorded the 

figures which they consider as being reliable, comparable, and representative 

of the people and society being studied, then the data can be tabulated. 

26 For this conference paper, the manumission figures were taken 

from the official colonial manumission returns from the Mauritius Archives 

and the Reports of the Protector of Slaves of Mauritius and the Cape 

Colony which are printed in the British Parliamentary Papers. Additional


manumission returns were also obtained from certain colonial dispatches 

and contemporary observers. For Jamaica, the manumission data was 

taken entirely from the secondary sources. 27 

The statistical data, while being tabulated, must be presented in such a 

way so that as much information can be extracted from them as possible. 28 

Furthermore, the manumission data has to be presented in a way that 

shows the frequency of manumission of different slave societies. According 

to Orlando Patterson, there are two kinds of issues which are involved 

when using and analyzing the frequency of manumission in a study of 

slave societies. Firstly, the manumission data has to show the variations in 

the manumission rates of different slave societies. 29 This paper compares 

and contrasts the manumission rates of Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and 

Jamaica, mostly between the 1810s and 1830s. Thus, within a comparative 

framework, it tries to look at the frequency of manumission in these 

three British slave societies and it tries to point out in which slave society, 

the slaves were being manumitted most frequently. This may give an 

indication which one of these three British colonies, by allowing their 

slaves greater access to freedom through manumission, had a more open 

slave society. 30 

Secondly, Patterson explains that when looking at the frequency of 

manumission, the historian has to focus on “the varying rates among 

different groups of individuals within societies, regardless of the overall 

rate of manumission”. 31 When it comes to analyzing manumission in 

Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica, this study doesn’t look at these 

colonial slaves as one homogenous mass. It is important to note that one of 

the major weaknesses in most of the historical studies on Mauritian slavery 

has been the tendency of seeing the Mauritian slaves as being one homogenous 

mass. 32 Some of the manumission figures in this research paper 

clearly show that the Mauritian, Cape, and Jamaican slave populations 

were diverse in their ethnicity, demographic composition, and occupation. 

Therefore, it looks in detail at the manumission patterns of the male, 

female, urban, rural, local-born, and foreign-born slaves in these three 


British slave colonies, mostly between the 1810s and the early 1830s. In 

addition, this paper also makes a distinction between local-born or creole 

slaves, Mozambican, Malagasy, Indian, and Malay slaves. It is evident that 

such an approach highlights the racial and ethnic diversity of the slave 

populations and, to a certain extent, give an insight into the diversity of the 

slave experience in Mauritius, the Cape, and Jamaica. 

Quantitative Manumission and its Application 

In this conference paper, the presentation and analysis of the 

manumission data, as variations in the manumission rates of Mauritius, the 

Cape Colony, and Jamaica as well as the manumission rates among the 

different segments of their slave populations, will be called quantitative 

manumission. Thus, quantitative manumission, which falls within the 

sphere of quantitative history and as a tool of historical analysis, allows 

slave historians to compare and contrast the manumission rates of different 

slave societies and among the different segments of their slave populations. 

This comparative approach allows the slave historian to know in which of 

these three slave societies, manumission was frequent or not so frequent, 

the greatest of number of slaves who were freed, and the slaves who had 

the best chance of being manumitted. 

In this paper, quantitative manumission is used to how many slaves obtained 

their freedom through self-purchase as well as with the help of their 

free coloured relatives and those who were freed gratuitously by their 

owners. It will indicate how many female, male, creole, foreign-born, 

urban, and rural slaves were manumitted in each of these three British 

colonies. Therefore, quantitative manumission allows the slave historian to 

compare and contrast the frequency of manumission among the different 

segments of the slave populations of Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and 

Jamaica during the early nineteenth century. Furthermore, it also helps 

7



the historian to identify those slaves who stood the best chance of obtaining 

their manumission and eventually becoming free coloured members of 

these colonial societies. 

Quantitative manumission allows the slave historian to study the increases 

and decreases in the manumission rates during the early nineteenth century 

in Mauritius, the Cape, and Jamaica. This fact takes on an even 

greater importance, when looking at the introduction of British slave 

amelioration legislation which liberalized the restrictive manumission laws 

in these three British colonies during the late 1820s and early 1830s. 

Without doubt, quantitative manumission gives a clear indication, during 

the last decade of British colonial slavery, the overall impact the introduction 

of British amelioration legislation had on the manumission rates, on 

the access of the slaves to freedom, and the manumission process in these 

three slave societies. 33 

Christopher Saunders explains: “Historians of slavery at the Cape may lay 

too great a stress on the great day of freedom, whether 1 December 1834 

or the more important day four years later. Freedom had come to many 

individuals long before either of those dates, both those manumitted from 

slavery…and to the Prize Negroes. Individually and collectively they 

moved from effective slavery to “freedom” before emancipation dawned 

for the slaves”. 34 Thus, one of the main objectives of this paper is to place 

a great deal of emphasis on the fact that even before the abolition of 

slavery, thousands of Mauritian, Cape, and Jamaican slaves were able to 

obtain their freedom between the 1810s and the 1830s. This was especially 

the case during the late 1820s and early 1830s, with the liberalization 

of the manumission process for the slaves. 35 

Quantitative Manumission in Mauritius, at 

the Cape, and Jamaica: A Comparative Perspective 

In May 1827, the Franco-Mauritian planters sent an official letter to 

Governor Colville in which they outlined their views on the application of 

British slave amelioration legislation in Mauritius. When it came to the 

issue of easing the manumission process for the slaves, the white 

slaveowners remarked that “there is no colony in which, everything taken 

into consideration, so many manumissions occur as in Mauritius”. 36 This 

statement by the Mauritian planters was clearly an exaggeration because, 

as David Brion Davis points out, the “slaves in Latin America had more 

opportunities for manumission than did those in the British colonies or the 

United States”. 37 In fact, many more slaves were being manumitted in 

Brazil as well as in the Dutch colonies of Suriname and Curacao than in 

Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica. 38 For his part, Robert Shell 

points out that “the Cape manumission rate was higher than most of the 

anglophone Caribbean colonies, for example, the rate of Jamaica”. 39 

For a British slave colony, Mauritius had an unusually high manumission 

rate. 40 After all, in 1832, 1,647 slaves were manumitted, the greatest 

number of slaves to be free, in one year, during the entire period that 

slavery existed in the island. 41 This contrasts with the Cape’s highest 

manumission figure for one year, which was in 1827, when 245 slaves 

were freed. The figure for the Cape Colony is almost seven times lower 

than the highest Mauritian manumission figure for one year. 42 In Jamaica, 

the greatest number of slaves were manumitted between 1826 and 1829, 

around 1117 were freed or an annual average of 372. The highest 

manumission figure for Jamaica for one year was four and a half times 

lower than the highest Mauritian manumission figure for one year (See 

Appendix to this Paper). 43 During the late 1820s and early 1830s, when 

compared with the first half of the 1820s, the Mauritian manumission rate 

increased by six fold, at the Cape of Good Hope, it almost tripled, and in 

Jamaica, it rose by more than 26%. It is evident that between 1829 and


1834, Mauritius had a much higher manumission rate which meant that 

more slaves were being freed when compared with the Cape Colony and 

Jamaica. It also shows that the Mauritian slaves had the greater access to 

freedom, through manumission, and many more former slaves were 

becoming members of the island’s free coloured community than their 

Cape and Jamaican counterparts. Thus, these facts reinforce the argument 

that during last years of British colonial slavery, to a certain extent, Mauritius 

had an open slave society. Furthermore, during this period, the British 

slave amelioration legislation, dealing with manumission, had a much 

greater impact in Mauritius than at the Cape of Good Hope and in Jamaica. 

44 

The Nature of Manumission in Three British 

Slave Colonies 

In the Cape Colony, between 1816 and 1822, out of 192 acts of 

manumission, “17 were effected by purchase and 175 by voluntary 

grants”. This meant that 91% were gratuitous manumissions which were 

granted by the slaveowners and 9% were bought manumissions which had 

been bought by the slaves themselves as well as with the help of their 

relatives. 45 In Jamaica, it was already mentioned, that in the early nineteenth 

century, there was some easing in the island’s manumission law. 46 

Thus, between 1807 and early 1820s, the overwhelming majority of the 

manumissions were bequests and voluntary grants by the slaveowners and 

not purchases by the slaves. 47 During the same period, this manumission 

trend at the Cape and in Jamaica was similar to what was taking place in 

Mauritius. Between 1811 and July 1822, there were 1,595 

manumissions, around 1061 slaves or 66.5% were manumitted by their 

owners. As for the rest, around 504 slaves or 31.6% were freed through 

marriages, self-purchase, and manumitted by their relatives and loved 

ones and 30 slaves or 1.9% were manumitted by the British government 

of Mauritius. 48 Therefore, during this period, most of the slaves were freed 

by their owners but, this was a manumission trend which was gradually 

going to change in Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica. 49 


Between 1821 and 1826, there were 433 acts of manumission, around 

133 slaves or 30.7% were manumitted by their owners. In addition, 274 

slaves or 63.3% were freed through self-purchase, marriages, and with the 

financial help of their relatives. 50 It is evident that, during the first half of 

the 1820s, the number of slaves being freed through self-purchase, marriage, 

and with the aid of their relatives increased dramatically, when 

compared with the period between 1811 and 1822. At the same time, 

during the 1820s, the number of slaveowners who were manumitting their 

slaves declined gradually when compared with the first decade of British 

rule in Mauritius. 51 

Between 1817 and 1824, at the Cape, the number of slaves being freed 

by their owners was also gradually decreasing. 52 By the early 1820s, in 

Jamaica, the number of slaves being manumitted by the slaveowners 

declined and the number of slaves purchasing their freedom was increasing. 

53 This gradual reduction in the number of gratuitous manumissions by 

slaveholders in Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica, during the 

1820s, also coincided with a period when there was a brief decline in the 

manumission rates in these three slave societies. 54 In Mauritius, the 

number of slaves being manumitted declined from 172 in 1821 to an alltime 

low of 52 in 1823 and 40 in 1825. 55 At the Cape, according to the 

figures provided by Isobel Edwards, the number of slaves who were 

manumitted, annually, declined from 97 in 1817 to 27 in 1821 and 24 

in 1824. 56 For Jamaica, between 1817 and 1820, 1016 slaves were 

manumitted and from 1820 to 1823, only 921 slaves were freed. 57 It 

must be remembered that during the 1820s, the British imperial government 

implemented its slave amelioration laws to reform colonial slavery. 

Without a doubt, as it was mentioned earlier, these measures made the 

slaveowners in the British slave colonies even more reluctant to free their 

slaves. 

By the late 1820s, Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica moved 

towards a liberalization of their manumission laws which increased their 

manumission rates. 58 By 1826, in Mauritius, the number of slaves who 

9



were freed was 94 and, the following year, this figure rose to 190. 59 

Between March 1829 and December 1830, around 1,025 slaves were 

manumitted. 60 At the Cape, in 1826 and 1827, 210 slaves were freed. 61 

In Jamaica, between 1826 and 1829, around 1117 slaves were 

manumitted. 62 

Between August and December 1826, at the Cape of Good Hope, around 

63 slaves were manumitted and 31 or 49% among them had bought their 

freedom through their own savings as well as with the help of their relatives. 

63 In addition, from August 1826 to December 1832, as it was 

mentioned earlier, around 36.9% of the slaves had bought their freedom 

and over 37.8% were manumitted by their owners. 64 Therefore, when 

compared with the period from 1816 to 1822, the number of slaves who 

purchased their own freedom, between 1826 and 1832, more than quadrupled 

from 9% to 36%. 65 Indeed, at the Cape Colony, the liberalization 

of the manumission process allowed hundreds of slaves to purchase their 

freedom as well as for many free coloureds to manumit of their enslaved 

relatives. 66 

Barry Higman explains that in Jamaica “the number of manumissions 

purchased exceeded the number granted gratuitously from about 1826”. 67 

Between 1826 and 1833, 2479 Jamaican slaves were manumitted and 

well over half of these slaves managed to purchase their freedom. 68 According 

to Patterson, apart from the slaves in Kingston, in order for a 

Jamaican plantation slave to purchase his or her freedom, that slave had to 

possess a high status among the plantation slaves, he/she had to be a 

valuable slave, and receive better treatment from their owner than most of 

their fellow slaves. 69 Without a doubt, the elite among the plantation slaves, 

would either be the mulattoes or local-born slaves who were skilled artisans 

and craftsmen, the domestics in the master’s households, the overseers 

of the slave gangs, and those in charge of the plantation workshops. 70 

During the late 1820s, just like in the Cape Colony and Jamaica, the 

number of Mauritian slaves purchasing their freedom also increased. 

Between June 1828 and June 1829, out of 643 slaves who had been 

manumitted, 52 or 8% had been freed by will or bequest by their owners. 

But even more significant, around 591 slaves or almost 92% had been 

manumitted through self-purchase, with the money put up by their relatives, 

and through marriages with free coloured individuals. 71 Between 

1828 and 1829, when compared with the Cape Colony and Jamaica, 

many more Mauritian slaves were buying their freedom, thanks to the 

money they saved as well as with the financial help of their families and 

friends. Thus, it is evident that the Mauritian slaves, who tried to secure 

their manumission, were depending less on the generosity of their owners. 

During the late 1820s, this manumission trend was almost a completion of 

the process that had started in the early 1820s. 72 

Herbert Aptheker, a famous American slave historian, once observed “it 

was often possible for the slave, by great perseverance and labor to purchase 

his own freedom and, this being accomplished, the freedom of those 

dear to him.” Aptheker also described the act of the slave purchasing his 

freedom as an individual act of resistance against slavery. 73 Furthermore, 

manumission can be seen as “being a passive form of resistance” because 

“the slaves sought not to abolish slavery but to ameliorate conditions for 

themselves by freeing themselves”. 74 Thus, the slaves who bought their 

freedom clearly showed that they rejected their inferior status vis-à-vis 

their owners and they wanted to improve their lives as free individuals in 

colonial society. 75 Without a doubt, the process of manumission was “the 

most profound event in a slave’s life”, but this was a special event which 

was experienced by only a few fortunate slaves. 76 Manumission was an 

“extremely profound and dramatic act” because it was “a judicial act in 

which the property rights in the slave” were surrendered by the 

slaveowners and a new status and identity was being created for the 

manumittee as a free individual. 77 While referring to the ideas of Friedrich 

Hegel, the great German philosopher, on slavery, Orlando Patterson


explains that in the slave’s struggle for freedom and “in his 

disenslavement”; he evidently “becomes a new man for himself.” Then, 

how does the slave become free and becomes a new man? According to 

Hegel, this is achieved “through work and labour” which the slave gradually 

realizes and this is truly when the slave’s psychological and physical 

journey to freedom begins. 78 Eric Foner points out that one of the 

freedoms which the slaves immediately sought was self-ownership. 79 

Therefore, by purchasing their freedom with their hard earned cash as 

well as with the financial help of their relatives, the manumitted slaves 

clearly showed that they asserted “their ownership over their bodies”. In 

the process, through their actions, they completely rejected their owners’ 

claims over them as a piece of property. 80 Indeed, it must have been a 

moment of supreme satisfaction for these fortunate slaves, when they were 

able to secure their freedom thanks to their own efforts. In addition, 

manumission was also a major opportunity for some of these former slaves 

to buy the freedom of their enslaved relatives. After all, as it was already 

repeatedly emphasized in this chapter, it was extremely common for slaves 

to be manumitted by their free coloured relatives and friends. 81 

During the late 1820s and early 1830s, many of the slaves who were 

manumitted were skilled artisans and craftsmen as well as those who held 

a privileged position among the slaves and had access to some type of 

financial resources. Furthermore, there is one aspect of manumission in 

Mauritius, during the late 1820s, which has hardly been mentioned by 

slave historians. 82 In May 1828, the Commissioners of Eastern Inquiry 

reported: “We may observe, that the slave artificers and mechanics frequent 

the Sunday markets with articles for sale and the production of their 

leisure hours,….; indeed we have been assured that many of those 

enfranchisements, apparently gratuitous, have in fact been obtained by 

purchase from their masters by slaves from the fruit of their own exertions”. 

Therefore, many Mauritian slaves who were supposedly freed by 

their owners gratuitously had in fact paid for their manumissions them- 


selves. After all, many of these individuals who had purchased their own 

freedom were skilled slaves and they could command high wages or earn 

extra money for their precious labour in their free time. 83 

In their official letter to Governor Colville, the Franco-Mauritian 

slaveowning elite clearly admitted that they were concerned by the fact 

that “the commanders, workmen, and servants were generally those who 

have the means of purchasing their freedom”. 84 Thus, just like in the 

sugar-producing colony of Jamaica, in Mauritius, those who had the best 

chance of buying their freedom were the commanders who were put in 

charge of the field slaves, those in charge of the estate workshops, the 

skilled slaves, and the servants or the domestics. 85 During the late 1820s, 

the concern of the Mauritian slaveowners about the skilled slaves purchasing 

their freedom was not without reason. Deryck Scarr explains, that ever 

since the 1810s and the early 1820s, the slaveowners, who were also the 

island’s major sugar planters, were already heavily dependent on the 

labour of skilled slaves such as masons, blacksmiths, coopers, joiners, and 

locksmiths. 86 It is evident that during the last decade of Mauritian slavery, 

“with the expansion of the sugar industry, slave-owners resisted even more 

attempts at manumission as they feared an exodus from their estates. In 

particular, owners were against compulsory manumission by purchase, i.e, 

slaves paying a certain sum for their freedom, because freedom often 

would be bought by the most intelligent and hard-working” slaves. Many 

female slaves were manumitted through marriage, while the male slaves, 

mainly those who were skilled artisans and craftsmen, were able to purchase 

their freedom. 87 

In 1835, according to the Abstract of District Returns of Slaves in Mauritius 

at the time Emancipation, there were 5094 tradesmen or skilled 

artisans, 1991 commandeurs or headmen, and 15,556 domestics. When 

combined together, there were 22,641 tradesmen, commandeurs, and 

domestics. 88 Another estimate was given by Stipendiary Magistrate Percy 

Fitzpatrick who reported that out of the 61,121 slaves, there were 6,201 

artisans, 1,813 commandeurs, and 15,556 domestics. Fitzpatrick’s report 

11



clearly shows that there were 23,570 domestics, commandeurs, and 

skilled artisans. 89 These two important primary sources reveal that the 

slaves who had the best chance of buying their freedom consisted between 

37.1% and 38.6%, or well over one third, of the island’s slave population. 

90 

In 1834, Eugene Bernard observed that, between 1827 and 1833, many 

of the slaves who had been manumitted were carpenters, blacksmiths, and 

masons who earned high wages. He described how a newly freed slave, 

who was a good carpenter, had refused a job for which he would have 

been paid 30 piastres per month or the equivalent to 30 rix dollars. 91 It is 

evident that a skilled slave, like a carpenter, could earn as much as 360 

rix dollars for one year. Thus, it may be argued that the slaves who were 

skilled artisans and craftsmen were perhaps the most privileged slaves in 

the colony because they had the best access to financial resources and to 

purchase their freedom. In 1835, there were between 5094 and 6201 

skilled slaves and they made up between 8.3 to 10.1 % of the total slave 

population. 92 Therefore, the skilled slaves formed a large class within the 

Mauritian slave population and apart from securing their freedom, they 

could also manumit their enslaved relatives. 93 In 1834, at the Cape of 

Good Hope, there were only 1383 skilled slaves who constituted only 

3.8% of the slave population. 94 There were roughly 3.8 to 4.5 times more 

skilled slaves in Mauritius than at the Cape. By taking into consideration 

all these facts, it is not surprising that during the late 1820s and throughout 

the 1830s, many more Mauritian slaves and apprentices were able to 

purchase their freedom than their Cape counterparts. At the same time, it 

is obvious that many of these slaves and apprentices had to make enormous 

sacrifices to come up with the money in order to pay for their freedom. 

By the sweat of their brow and their inexhaustible perseverance, 

they earned their freedom and this fact by itself shows, to what extent, 

they were determined to be free. 95 

Manumission of Creole and Foreign-Born 

Slaves: 


Orlando Patterson explains that in slaveholding societies, throughout 

history, there was a greater tendency of manumitting creole or local-born 

slaves than foreign slaves or slaves who were imported from abroad. 96 This 

situation also existed in the slave societies of Mauritius, the Cape Colony, 

and Jamaica during the early nineteenth century. In Mauritius, the creole 

slaves had better chances of being manumitted than newly imported 

slaves. This fact can clearly be seen in the colony’s manumission 

records. 97 

Between 1829 and 1830, around 636 slaves were manumitted, 525 or 

almost 83% of the manumittees were creole slaves and 111 or over 17% 

were foreign-born slaves (See Appendix). 98 In 1830, Baron D’Unienville, 

the Chief Archivist of Mauritius, reported that over 33% of the slave 

population were creoles and almost 67% were foreign slaves who had 

been brought into the colony from Mozambique, Madagascar, India, and 

the Seychelles (See Appendix). 99 Interestingly enough, creole slaves 

formed over 33% of the slave population, but they consisted almost 83% 

of the slaves manumitted between 1829 and 1830. 100 

During this one-year period, among the 111 foreign-born slaves who were 

freed, around 42 or 37.6% were Indians, 34 or 30.6% were Malagasy, 

and 22 or 19.8% were Mozambicans. As for the rest, 10 or 9% were 

slaves from the Seychelles and 3 or 2.8% were slaves born in Malaysia 

and elsewhere. When compared with the total number of slaves 

manumitted in 1829 and 1830, the Indians make up 6.6%, the Malagasy 

5.3%, the Mozambicans 3.4%, the slaves from the Seychelles 1.6%, and 

the others 0.5%. 101 By 1830, almost 41% of the Mauritian slaves were 

Mozambicans, 20% were Malagasy, and almost 6% were Indians. 102 

Although the foreign-born slaves made-up almost 67% of the island’s slave 

population, they only consisted around 17.4% of the total number of


slaves manumitted between 1829 and 1830. The greatest contrast would 

be with the Mozambicans who consisted almost 41% of the slave population, 

but they only made up 3.45% of all the slaves manumitted. While 

the Indians made up almost 6% of the slave population and they consisted 

around 6.6% of all the slaves who were freed. Amazingly enough, there 

were six and a half times more Mozambican slaves than Indian slaves in 

Mauritius, but the number of Indian slaves manumitted was double that of 

the Mozambicans. It highlights the fact that in Mauritius, there was a 

greater tendency to manumit Indian slaves, or Asian slaves, than 

Mozambican slaves, or African slaves, who were usually field labourers on 

the sugar estates. 103 

Between 1658 and 1828, at the Cape of Good Hope, creole or local-born 

slaves accounted for 70% of all manumitted slaves. Between 1826 and 

1834, in Cape Town and the Cape District, local-born slaves made up 

80% of the manumitted slaves while the foreign-born slaves around 

20%. 104 These figures from the Cape are almost similar with the ones from 

Mauritius, for 1829 and 1830, where almost 83% of the slaves freed 

were creoles and more than 17% were foreign-born (See Appendix). 105 

Just like in Mauritius, in the Cape Colony, there was a greater tendency to 

manumit the Asian slaves than the African slaves. 106 George Fredrickson 

has shown that between 1715 and 1794, around 290 foreign-born slaves 

were manumitted and 275 or almost 95% were Asians and only 15 or just 

over 5% were Africans (Mozambicans and Malagasy). 107 Between 1816 

and 1834, around 15% of all manumitted slaves were Asians and they 

consisted only 10% of Cape Town’s and the Cape District’s slave population. 

During this same period, 5% of all the manumitted slaves were 

Mozambicans and Malagasy and they made up 20% of the slave population 

of Cape Town and the Cape District. 108 

It must be remembered that, in Mauritius, only 6.6% of all the 

manumitted slaves were Indians and they formed around 6% of the slave 

population. At the same time, the East Africans or the Mozambicans and 

Malagasy formed almost 61% of the Mauritian slave population, but 


consisted only 8.7% of all the manumitted slaves. 109 In the Cape Colony, 

the white slaveowners did possess a sense of ethnic hierarchy for their 

slaves, they saw the Asian slaves as being more intelligent than the African 

slaves. Therefore, Asian slaves were usually employed as skilled artisans 

and craftsmen. In addition, the slaveowners considered the African slaves 

or, to be more precise, the Mozambican slaves to be strong and suitable to 

do mostly heavy labour. Therefore, they were usually employed to do the 

most difficult and back-breaking work on the wine and the wheat farms of 

the south-western Cape. 110 Just like at the Cape of Good Hope, in Mauritius, 

there was also a strong correlation between the ethnicity of the slaves 

and hard labour. Most of the time, the Indian slaves worked as domestics 

and artisans, while the Mozambican slaves were used as agricultural 

labourers. The majority of the colony’s Indian slaves were usually employed 

to do light work by their owners. But, the overwhelming majority of 

the island’s Mozambican slaves, who were located in the colony’s rural 

districts, were used to do mostly heavy labour on the sugar estates. 111 

Barry Higman indicates that like in many modern slave societies, Jamaican 

creole slaves were more frequently manumitted than foreign-born 

slaves. 112 Between 1829 and 1832, out of 1362 slaves who were 

manumitted, around 126 or 9.3% were foreign slaves who had been 

brought mostly from West Africa and 1236 or 90.7% were creole 

slaves. 113 Between 1807 and 1832, the number of African-born slaves 

dropped from 45% to 25% of the total slave population. Thus, in 1832, 

75% of the Jamaican slave population was local-born. 114 Between 1829 

and 1832, the stark reality was that foreign-born Jamaican slaves made up 

25% of the slave population, but they only accounted for 9.3 % of all 

manumitted slaves. At the same time, creole slaves made up 75% of the 

slave population and accounted for 90.7% of all manumissions (See 

Appendix). 115 

When taking a comparative look at the manumission of creole and foreign 

slaves in British slave colonies, it is important to look at the level of 

creolization. In his comparative article on the slave societies of Mauritius 

13



and the Cape Colony, Nigel Worden explains that the “level of creolisation 

in Mauritius was less than that of other slaves colonies, including the 

Cape”. 116 In 1826, according to the slave census, around 33.8% of the 

rural slaves in Mauritius were local-born while, in Port-Louis, it was only 

31%. 117 In 1824, 71% of the slaves of Cape Town and of the Cape District 

were local-born and 29% were has been brought from overseas. 118 By 

1832, 75% of the Jamaican slave population was local-born and 25% had 

been introduced from Africa. 119 Thus, during the mid-1820s and early 

1830s, the demographic situation of the Cape Colony and Jamaica was 

almost the direct opposite of what was taking place in Mauritius. It is 

evident that there was a much higher birth rate in Jamaica and at the Cape 

of Good Hope than in British Mauritius. 120 During the 1810s and 1820s, 

the Mauritian slave population was unable to naturally reproduce itself, as 

a result, large quantities of slaves were brought in to replenish this segment 

of the island’s population . 121 This was done largely between 1811 

and 1825, through the illegal introduction of thousands of slaves into 

Mauritius. 122 The large volume of this illicit slave trade was rather unique 

to Mauritius, as a British colony, when compared with Jamaica and the 

Cape Colony where the slave trade had been successfully suppressed. 123 

As a recapitulation, in Mauritius, between 1829 and 1830, almost 83% 

(or around 82.6%) of the slaves manumitted were creoles or local-born 

and over 17% (or around 17.4%) were foreign-born (See Appendix). 124 

The creole slaves accounted for over 33% of the slave population, while 

almost 67% of the slaves came from abroad (See Appendix). 125 These 

Mauritian manumission figures are almost similar with Cape Town and the 

Cape District, where between 1816 and 1834, around 80% of the 

manumittees were local-born slaves and 20% of the slaves had been 

brought from overseas (See Appendix). At the same time, over 71% of the 

Cape slaves were creoles and their foreign-born counterparts made up 

29% of the slave population (See Appendix). 126 By 1832, in Jamaica, 

90.7% of all manumitted slaves were local-born and 9.3% were foreignborn 

(See Appendix). 127 

Furthermore, around 75% of the Jamaican slaves were creoles and 25% 

had been imported from overseas (See Appendix). 128 These figures adequately 

reinforce the argument that in these three British colonies, creole 

slaves stood a much better chance of being manumitted than their foreignborn 

counterparts. Furthermore, the foreign-born slaves in Mauritius had 

even fewer chances of being manumitted than their peers in the Cape 

Colony and Jamaica. But, at the same time, the Mauritian-born slaves also 

had better chances of being manumitted than their Cape and Jamaican 

counterparts. 129 

Urban Manumission in Mauritius, the Cape 

Colony, and Jamaica 

Orlando Patterson points out that in almost all slave societies, there was a 

strong correlation between urban residence and manumission. 130 During 

the late 1820s and early 1830s, this fact strongly applies to Port-Louis, 

Cape Town, and Kingston. 131 In Mauritius, Jean de la Battie, the local 

French consul, reported that between 1825 and 1830, there were 283 

manumissions in Port-Louis which contained around 14000 slaves. While, 

at the same time, there were only 209 manumissions in the rural districts. 

132 

During the late 1820s, almost a quarter of the island’s total slave population 

was found in Port Louis and 75 per cent of the colony’s slaves were 

located in the rural districts, mostly on the sugar estates. 133 At this stage, it 

must be pointed out that between 1825 and 1830 roughly around 1,525 

slaves were manumitted therefore, the figures provided by de la Battie 

only represent less than one third of all the slaves who were freed during 

this period. Therefore, his figures might be seen as representing an accurate 

sample of the urban and rural slaves who were manumitted during 

the second half of the 1820s. 134 De la Battie’s sample indicates that, 

during this period, around 57.6% of the slaves who were manumitted 

were from Port-Louis and 42.4% were from the rural districts. 135 Furthermore, 

between 1835 and 1839, de la Battie estimated that 2,780 appren-


tices were freed, around 1,735 or 62.4% were from Port-Louis and only 

1,045 apprentices or 37.6% were from the rural districts. 136 This was also 

a sample because it must be remembered that, between 1835 and 1839, 

around 9,000 apprentices had bought their freedom. These figures show 

that between 1825 and 1839, the number of urban slaves and urban 

apprentices being manumitted was increasing, while, at the same time, the 

number of rural slaves and rural apprentices being freed was declining. 

For the period from 1831 to 1834, at the current stage of this research, 

no accurate manumission data has been uncovered for Port-Louis and the 

rural districts. But, de la Battie’s figures may give an indication into rural 

and urban manumission trend during the early 1830s. At this point, it is 

necessary to make an average of the percentage of de la Battie’s figures for 

the number of urban and rural slaves who were manumitted from 1825 to 

1830 and from 1835 to 1839. This average may give us an idea of the 

number of slaves who were freed in Port-Louis and in the rural districts 

during the early 1830s. This proposed average yields a figure of 60% for 

Port-Louis and 40% for the rural districts. 137 Between 1831 and 1834, 

around 3403 slaves were manumitted in the colony. 138 Therefore, during 

this four-year period, in Port-Louis, roughly 2,042 slaves were 

manumitted, while in the rural districts, around 1361 slaves were freed. 

At this stage, the imperative question to be asked is why many more 

slaves were manumitted in Port Louis than in the rural districts of Mauritius? 

Furthermore, what were the key factors which increased the chances 

of the urban slaves to obtain their freedom, through manumission, than 

their rural counterparts on the sugar plantations? 139 Frederick Douglass, 

the famous ex-slave from the American South, once explained: “A city 

slave is almost a freeman, compared with a slave on the plantation. He is 

much better fed and clothed, and enjoys privileges altogether unknown to 

the slave on the plantation”. 140 Furthermore, as Orlando Patterson explains, 

in many slave societies: “The critical factor at work here was the 

fact that the urban areas offered more plentiful opportunities for slaves 

either to acquire skills or to exercise some control, if not marginal, over 


the disposal of their earnings or both”. 141 In 1833, a distinction was made 

“in the Abolition Act between praedial field workers and non-praedial 

urban and domestic slaves” in all the British slave colonies, with the 

exception of St. Lucia. 142 According to the Abstract of District Returns of 

Slaves in Mauritius at the time of Emancipation of 1835, there were 

around 3237 non-predial head tradesmen and inferior head tradesmen, 

929 non-predial slaves, and also thousands of domestics. 143 Without a 

doubt, many of these non-praedial slaves were found in Port-Louis and 

they formed part of a large urban class of skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled 

slaves which continued to exist during the early post-emancipation 

period. 144 After all, an 1846 census of the colony shows that in Port- 

Louis, there were over 2,816 urban ex-apprentices who were involved in 

commerce, trade, and the manufacturing sector. This group of former 

apprentices also included hundreds of carpenters, carters, wheelwrights, 

tailors, masons, seamstresses, and bakers. 145 

In 1846, in his report on the ex-apprentices in Port-Louis, Stipendiary 

Magistrate Fitzpatrick pointed out that there was a large and thriving class 

of urban of ex-apprentices and many among them were skilled artisans 

and craftsmen. The other former apprentices who formed part of this 

urban underclass were cooks, grooms, sailors, boatmen, shopkeepers, 

traders, hawkers, domestics, and seamstresses. The majority of among 

these ex-apprentices had either lived for many years or had spent most of 

their lives in Port Louis. In addition, they continued doing the same work 

that they did as urban slaves and they even taught their trade to their 

children. During the early 1830s, many of these urban slaves, especially 

the skilled artisans and craftsmen, were able to earn high wages and were 

financially better off than most of the rural slaves. 146 Thus, what can be 

concluded is that during the late 1820s and early 1830s, a large class of 

skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled urban slaves had emerged in Port- 

Louis. Furthermore, these urban slaves, especially the skilled ones, had 

access to financial resources and, as a result, they had the best chance of 

purchasing their freedom. 147 

15



While discussing the issue of manumission in Kingston in 1832, Barry 

Higman explains that “those slaves who purchased their own freedom 

were predominantly black town-dwellers, because the nature of their 

occupations and their relative independence enabled them to acquire 

cash, and because the urban skilled slave saw more to be gained from 

freedom than did his rural counterpart”. 148 This evidently explains why 

during the late 1820s and the early 1830s, many more slaves were able 

to secure their manumission in Port Louis, Cape Town, and Kingston than 

in the rural districts. 149 Therefore, during the last years of slavery in 

Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica, manumission was mainly “an 

urban phenomenon”. 150 

During the 1830s, in Port-Louis, according to a police report, there were 

many slaves/apprentices who were dealers in contraband goods. 151 During 

this period, through gambling alone, around 20,000 rix dollars changed 

hands every day among the urban slaves/apprentices and they were also 

responsible for the increase of burglary in Port Louis. 152 Through these 

illegal activities, the urban slaves/apprentices had access to large sums of 

money and, like the skilled urban slaves, they had a better chance of 

buying their freedom than most of their rural counterparts. 

When compared with the Cape Colony and Jamaica, there was a greater 

concentration of urban slaves in Mauritius. 153 In 1831, Port-Louis contained 

around 16,139 or 25.5% of the colony’s slaves and three years 

later, this figure would fall to 15,412 or 24%, with 48,919 or 76% of the 

slaves residing in the rural areas. 154 By 1834, at the Cape, 5583 or 

15.4% of the slaves lived in Cape Town and 30,586 or almost 84.6% of 

them lived in the rural districts. 155 Between 1829 and 1832, around 

12,896 or 4% of all the Jamaican slaves lived in Kingston and 309,525 

or 96% of them resided mostly in the rural parishes. 156 

As a recapitulation, in 1834, around 60% of the Mauritius slaves who 

were manumitted lived in Port-Louis, where 24% of the colony’s slave 

population was found. 157 During that same year, around 90% of the 

manumissions took place in Cape Town and by then, only 15.4% of the 

colony’s slave population lived there. 158 In 1832, roughly 22% of the 

manumissions in Jamaica took place in Kingston where 4% of that island’s 

slave population resided. 159 These figures show that the slaves of Cape 

Town stood the best chance of being manumitted than their counterparts 

in Port-Louis and Kingston. 160 

The Manumission of Female and Male Slaves: 


The sexual identity of a slave was an extremely important factor which 

heavily influenced a slave’s access to freedom. 161 Robert Shell once noted 

that “the process of manumission favored adult female slaves and their 

children” which was common in many slave societies. 162 In Mauritius, the 

Cape Colony, and Jamaica, most often those who were manumitted were 

young female slaves. 163 

Between 1768 and 1789, in Mauritius, out of 785 manumitted slaves, 

around 479 or 61% were females and 306 or 39% were males. 164 The 

result of having so many females being manumitted is that it caused a 

great imbalance in the sex ratio in the colony’s free population of colour. 

In 1788, among the free coloureds, there were 725 females and only 435 

males. By 1806, the free coloured females outnumbered the males by two 

to one in the colony and three to one in Port-Louis. 165 This unhealthy 

demographic trend continued well into the early nineteenth century. 166 

Between 1821 and 1826, around 433 slaves were manumitted and 

65.6% were females and 34.4% were males. 167 Between 1829 and 1830, 

out of 612 slaves who were manumitted, around 45% were males and 

55% were females. 168 Between 1826 and 1832, female slaves consisted 

38% to 39% of the slave population when compared with 62% to 61% for 

their male counterparts. 169 It is evident that, in Mauritius, the percentage 

for the manumission of female slaves remained almost the same between 

1768 and 1825. But after 1829, the gap in the number of manumissions 

between the male and female slaves was gradually narrowing. 170


At the Cape of Good Hope, the slaveowners manumitted their female 

slaves more frequently than their male slaves. Between 1816 and 1824, 

out of 266 slaves who were manumitted, 44.7% were males and 55.3% 

were females. 171 From the end of the slave trade in 1808 until 1834, 

55% of the manumitted slaves in the colony were females. 172 Between 

1816 and 1834, in Cape Town, the Cape District, and Stellenbosch 

district, female slaves consisted just over 40% of the slave population, 

while for the male slaves it was 60%. 173 

From 1826 to 1829, in Jamaica, out of 1,117 slaves who were 

manumitted, around 67.6% were females and 32.4% were males. But 

between 1826 and 1832, this difference in the number of manumissions 

between male and females slaves began to narrow. During this six-year 

period, 1,362 slaves were freed, around 41% were males and 59% were 

females. This phenomenon was largely due to the fact that, the number of 

male slaves being manumitted between 1829 and 1832, when compared 

with the period between 1826 and 1829, increased from 362 to 558. 174 It 

must be remembered that between 1829 and 1830, 45% of the slaves 

who were freed were males and 55% were females. 175 In 1826 and 1832, 

female slaves consisted 38% to 39% of the total slave population when 

compared with 62% to 61% for the male slaves. 176 Therefore, during this 

period, the situation in Mauritius was almost similar to the one in Jamaica, 

in terms of the percentage of male and female manumissions. 177 

In 1826 and 1832, in contrast with Mauritius and the Cape Colony, there 

were more female than male slaves in Jamaica. In 1826, the females 

made up 50.8% of the Jamaican slave population while the males consisted 

only around 49.2%. Six years later, this gap increased slightly to 

51.4% for the female slaves and 48.6% for their male counterparts. This 

was a demographic feature which Jamaica shared with other British Caribbean 

slave colonies like Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and Grenada. 178 

During the early 1830s, in Mauritius and Jamaica, with the exception of 

the Cape Colony, the gap in the number of male and female slaves who 


were being manumitted was gradually narrowing. But, when compared 

with Mauritius and the Cape of Good Hope, Jamaica had many more 

female than male slaves. 179 

In Mauritius, Jean de la Battie observed that during the late 1820s and 

throughout the 1830s, those who were generally manumitted were young 

women and their children. 180 According to the manumission records of the 

Protector of Slaves, between 1829 and 1831, more than 70% of those 

who were freed were women and children. In addition, between 1829 and 

1830, around 500 domestics were manumitted or 40% of all the slaves 

who were freed. 181 

In 1834, in the Western Cape, many of the female slaves were employed 

as domestics who worked and lived in the households of their owners. 

Therefore, they were close to the families of their owners in terms of 

physical proximity and emotional ties. 182 Between December 1834 and 

December 1835, 73 apprentices were freed in Cape Town and among 

them 47 were females. These urban female apprentices were freed thanks 

to the money put up by their families and, in some cases, even by those 

who had hired them from their owners. In addition, a few of these Cape 

Town female apprentices were also manumitted gratuitously by their 

owners. 183 But, during the apprenticeship period, the manumission of the 

female apprentices did not only take place in Cape Town because some 

were also freed in the country districts of the Western Cape, like Worcester. 

184 

Conclusion 

This paper has tried to show that through manumission, the Mauritian, 

Cape, and Jamaican slaves sought to ameliorate their lives, regain their 

human dignity, and create a new identity for themselves as free individuals 

and free citizens within colonial society. Between the 1810s and early 

1830s, in these three colonies, thousands of slaves were able to obtain 

their freedom before the abolition of British colonial slavery. However, it 

must be remembered that manumission was obtained only by a small 

17



number of fortunate slaves, because the majority of the slaves in these 

three British colonies remained under the shackles of forced servitude 

until the advent of final emancipation in the late 1830s. Between the 

1810s and early 1830s, the manumission of these slaves made a major 

contribution to the rapid increase in the number of the free coloureds in 

Mauritius, the Cape Colony, mainly in Cape Town, and Jamaica. 

During the second half of the 1820s, British slave amelioration laws, 

dealing with manumission and in setting up the Office of the Protector of 

Slaves, were introduced in Mauritius, at the Cape of Good Hope, and 

Jamaica. These slave reform laws swept away the old manumission laws, 

liberalized the manumission process for the slaves, and encouraged their 

manumission. These slave amelioration measures were introduced at the 

Cape of Good Hope, through Ordinance No.19 of 1826, in Mauritius, 

through Ordinance No.43 of 1829, and in Jamaica, a similar law was 

passed in 1826. During the last years of British colonial slavery, the 

introduction of these liberal laws got rid of the costly fees and complex 

procedures of the old colonial manumission laws. These new legal measures 

allowed the slaves to purchase their freedom and made it easier for 

free coloured individuals to manumit their slave relatives. During the late 

1820s and early 1830s, there was a sharp decrease in the number of 

slaves being manumitted by the slaveowners and a dramatic increase in 

the number of slaves purchasing their freedom. During this period, many 

Mauritian, Cape, and Jamaican slaves were purchasing their freedom, 

thanks to the money they were saving as well as with the financial help of 

their free coloured families and friends. Therefore, it was evident that the 

slaves, who tried to secure their manumission, were depending more on 

their own financial resources and less on the generosity of their owners. 

It is extremely important to point out that between the 1810s and early 

1830s, the manumission of many Mauritian, Cape, and Jamaican slaves 

was made possible largely through their social relationships and contacts 

with the free coloureds. The manumission records of Mauritius and the 

Cape Colony clearly show that free coloured men bought the freedom of 

their concubine, free coloured women manumitted their lovers, and free 

coloured men and women freed their parents and children. After being 

manumitted, many of these ex-slaves legitimized their relationship by 

getting married, they formed families, and started a new life as free individuals 

in colonial society. In addition, the Mauritian manumission records 

of the 1810s and 1820s highlighted the fact that some of the manumitted 

slaves in that British colony were no longer natally alienated, dishonoured, 

and socially dead beings. During this period, some of these fortunate 

Mauritian slaves (or manumittees) were able to get married, have children, 

acquired land, and they were even able to return to settle in their native 

land. In general, it was mainly the former Malagasy slaves and their 

relatives who left Mauritius to return to the country of their origin. 

The liberalization of the manumission process led to a massive increase in 

the number of slaves who were being freed as well as in the manumission 

rates of Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica. During the late 1820s 

and early 1830s, when compared with the first half of the 1820s, the 

Mauritian manumission rate increased by six fold, at the Cape of Good 

Hope, it almost tripled, and in Jamaica, it rose by more than 26%. Furthermore, 

between 1829 and 1834, Mauritius had an unusually high 

manumission rate as a British colony. In 1832, 1,647 slaves were freed, 

the greatest number of slaves to be manumitted, in one year, during the 

entire period that slavery existed in the island. This contrasts with the 

Cape’s highest manumission figure for one year, in 1827, when 245 

slaves were freed. The figure for the Cape Colony is almost seven times 

lower than the highest Mauritian manumission figure for one year. In 

Jamaica, the greatest number of slaves were manumitted between 1826 

and 1829, when around 1117 slaves were freed, which represents an 

annual average of 372. The highest manumission figure for Jamaica for 

one year was four and a half times lower than the highest Mauritian 

manumission figure for one year.


It is evident that between 1829 and 1834, Mauritius had a much higher 

manumission rate which meant that many more slaves were being freed, 

when compared with the Cape Colony and Jamaica. These figures also 

indicate that the Mauritian slaves had greater access to freedom, through 

manumission, and many more slaves were becoming members of the 

island’s free coloured community than their Cape and Jamaican counterparts. 

These facts clearly reinforce the argument that, during last years of 

British colonial slavery, to a certain extent, Mauritius had an open slave 

society. In addition, during this period, the British slave amelioration 

legislation, dealing with manumission, had a much greater impact in 

Mauritius than at the Cape of Good Hope and in Jamaica. Furthermore, 

between 1835 and 1839, many more Mauritian apprentices were able to 

purchase their freedom than the Cape and Jamaican apprentices. After all, 

it must be remembered that, between 1829 and 1839, the Mauritian 

slaves and apprentices possessed “a frenzy for freedom” because they 

were determined to be free. Without doubt, quantitative manumission 

clearly shows that the introduction of British amelioration legislation, which 

liberalized the manumission laws in Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and 

Jamaica, greatly facilitated the access of the slaves to freedom and it lead 

to a sharp increase in the manumission rates. 

In Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica, creole slaves stood a much 

better chance of being manumitted than the foreign-born slaves. During 

this period, in Mauritius, the foreign-born slaves greatly outnumbered 

their local-born counterparts, while at the Cape of Good Hope and Jamaica, 

the creole slaves greatly outnumbered the foreign slaves. In addition, 

the foreign-born slaves in Mauritius had even fewer chances of being 

manumitted than their peers in the Cape Colony and Jamaica. But, at the 

same time, the Mauritian creole slaves also had better chances of being 

manumitted than the Cape and Jamaican slaves. During the 1820s and 

early 1830s, the demographic situation of the Cape Colony and Jamaica 

was almost the direct opposite of the one Mauritius. It is evident that there 

was a much higher birth rate and lower death rate at the Cape of Good 


Hope and in Jamaica, than in Mauritius. During the 1810s and 1820s, 

unlike the slave populations of the Cape Colony and in Jamaica, the 

Mauritian slave population was unable to naturally reproduce itself, as a 

result, large quantities of slaves were illegally introduced to replenish this 

segment of the island’s population. Most of the slaves who were introduced 

into Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica came from Africa. In the 

case of Mauritius and the Cape, they were imported from Mozambique 

and Madagascar, while for Jamaica, they came mostly from the western 

parts of the African continent. But unlike Jamaica, many Asian/Indian 

slaves were introduced into Mauritius and the Cape Colony. Both in British 

Mauritius and at the Cape of Good Hope, there was a greater tendency to 

manumit the Asian/Indian slaves than the Mozambican slaves. In these two 

British crown colonies, there was also a strong correlation between the 

ethnicity of the slaves and hard labour. In general, the Indian/Asian slaves 

worked as domestics and as skilled artisans who usually did light work. At 

the same time, the Mozambican slaves were used as agricultural labourers 

who did mostly heavy labour on the Mauritian sugar estates and Cape 

farms. 

In Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica, there was a strong correlation 

between urban residence and manumission. In these three British 

colonies, the urban slaves had a much better chance of obtaining their 

freedom than their rural counterparts. In the urban centers, there were 

many skilled artisans and craftsmen who were able to earn money by 

doing extra work in their spare time and by hiring themselves out to other 

slaveowners. There were other urban slaves who were involved in petty 

thefts, gambling, and smuggling, which offered them access to some 

money. In Mauritius, the Cape colony, and Jamaica, the urban slaves had 

more access to financial resources and in forming social relations with the 

free coloureds than their rural counterparts. Furthermore, Port Louis had 

a large slave population than Cape Town and Kingston, which meant that, 

when compared with the Cape Colony and Jamaica, there was a greater 

concentration of urban slaves in Mauritius. However, the slaves of Cape 

19



Town had more chances of being manumitted than their counterparts in 

Port-Louis and Kingston. But, at the same time, the Mauritian and Jamaican 

rural slaves had better chances of being freed than their peers at the 

Cape of Good Hope. 

In Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica, most often those who were 

manumitted were young female slaves. During the 1810s and 1820s, 

more female slaves were freed than their male counterparts. Furthermore, 

more female slaves were manumitted because, in terms of their value, they 

were cheaper and performed less work than the male slaves. In general, 

the female slaves had less access to financial resources than their male 

counterparts and one good example would be the fact that, there were 

very few female slaves who were skilled artisans and craftsmen, who could 

earn good wages for their precious in their spare time. During the early 

1830s, in Mauritius and Jamaica, with the exception of the Cape Colony, 

the gap in the number of male and female slaves who were being 

manumitted was gradually narrowing. It is also important to note that 

during the early nineteenth century, the Mauritian and Cape male slaves 

greatly outnumbered the female slaves. But during the late 1820s and 

early 1830s, in contrast with these two British slave colonies, there were 

more female than male slaves in Jamaica. This was a demographic feature 

which it shared with other British Caribbean slave colonies like Dominica, 

St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and Grenada. 

In this conference paper, quantitative manumission has shown that, 

during the late 1820s and early 1830s, in Mauritius, at the Cape of Good 

Hope, and Jamaica, the slaves who had most frequently manumitted were 

local-born, urban, and female slaves. Furthermore, colonial slaves who 

were skilled craftsmen and artisans, domestics, slave overseers, and slaves 

who were in charge of the slave workshops usually had access to some 

financial resources and they were able to purchase their freedom. At the 

same time, it also obvious that most of the slaves who were able to buy 

their freedom had to make enormous sacrifices in order to come up with 

the required cash to secure their manumission. By the sweat of their brow 

and through their inexhaustible perseverance, they earned their freedom. 

At the same time, manumission can also be seen as being a passive act of 

individual resistance against slavery, because the slaves did not seek to 

abolish slavery, but rather to improve their status and living conditions in 

colonial society by freeing themselves forever from the shackles of forced 

servitude. Thus, the slaves who bought their freedom clearly showed that 

they rejected their inferior status vis-à-vis their owners and they wanted to 

improve their lives as free individuals in Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and 

Jamaica. 

Endnotes: 

1) Andrew Bank, The Decline of Urban Slavery at the Cape, 1806 To 1843 (Centre for 

African Studies, University of Cape Town), Communications No.22 (1991), p.172; 

This conference paper is derived from Chapter Two from Satyendra Peerthum, 

“Determined to be Free: A Comparative Study of Manumission, the Slaves, and the 

Free Coloureds in the Slave Societies of Mauritius, the Cape Colony, and Jamaica, 

c.1767-1848’ (B.A Honours thesis, Historical Studies Department, University of 

Cape Town, 2001), p.68-134. I would like to thank the following individuals for all 

their help and support: Professor Robert Shell, Professor Nigel Worden, Professor 

Christopher Saunders, and Vijaya Teelock. 

2) Frank Tannenbaum, Slave and Citizen: The Negro in the Americas (New York, A.A. 

Knopf, 1947), p.42-66, See Especially p.67-70/82-83/88-108/112-127; See also 

Frank Tannenbaum, ‘Slavery, the Negro, and Racial Prejudice’, in Laura Foner & 

E.D. Genovese (eds), Slavery in the New World: A Reader in Comparative History 

(Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc, 1969), p.3-6; Richard Elphick & 

Robert Shell, ‘Intergroup Relations: Khoikhoi, Settlers, Slaves, and Free Blacks, 

1652-1795’ in Richard Elphick and and Hermann Giliomee (eds), The Shaping of 

South African Society, 1652-1840 (Cape Town, Longmanns Co, 1989), p.185; 

David Cohen and Jack P. Greene, ‘Introduction’ in David W. Cohen & Jack P. 

Greene (eds), Neither Slave Nor Free: The Freedman of African Descent in the Slave 

Societies of the New World (Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1972), p.1; 

See also Bank, The Decline of Urban Slavery at the Cape, 1806 To 1843, p.172. 

3) Author’s Analysis; See Tannenbaum, Slave and Citizen, p.42-70/82-127; 

Tannenbaum, ‘Slavery, the Negro, and Racial Prejudice’, p.3-6; Elphick & Shell, 

‘Intergroup Relations: Khoikhoi, Settlers, Slaves, and Free Blacks, 1652-1795’,


p.185; Cohen and Greene, ‘Introduction’, p.1; See also Bank, The Decline of Urban 

Slavery at the Cape, 1806 To 1843, p.172. 

4) Elphick & Shell, ‘Intergroup Relations: Khoikhoi, Settlers, Slaves, and Free Blacks, 

1652-1795’, p.185, p.204-214; Nigel Worden, Slavery in Dutch South Africa 

(Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 1985), p.143-145. 

5) David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 4 th Edition, (Cornell, 

Cornell University Press, 1966), p.54. 

6) Eugene D. Genovese, ‘The Treatment of Slaves in Different Countries: Problems in 

the Application of the Comparative Method’, in Laura Foner & Eugene D. Genovese 

(eds), Slavery in the New World: A Reader in Comparative History (Englewoods 

Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc, 1969), p.203; Highlighted Part Author’s 

Emphasis; See also Robert Shell, ‘Nasty, brutish, and short: Towards a cliometric 

assessment of the living conditions of Mauritian slaves in 1826’, (Unpublished paper 


presented at the Nelson Mandela Centre for African Culture, Port Louis, Mauritius, 

June 1999), p.1. 

7) Shell, ‘Nasty, brutish, and short: Towards a cliometric assessment of the living 

conditions of Mauritian slaves in 1826’, p.1. 

8) Nigel Worden, ‘Slavery and Emancipation in Mauritius and at the Cape: Towards a 

Regional Comparative Study’ (Paper presented at the Mahatma Gandhi Institute, 

‘Seminar on the Concept of Mauritian Studies’, 27 th -31 st August 1994, Moka, 

Mauritius), p.10. 

9) Idea & Quotation derived from Elphick & Shell, ‘Intergroup Relations: Khoikhoi, 

Settlers, Slaves, and Free Blacks, 1652-1795’, p.204. 

10) John Tosh, The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods, and New Directions in the 

Study of Modern History (London, England, Longmann Group Ltd, 1984), p.152- 

153. 

11) Ibid, p.167-168. 

12) Author’s Analysis. 

13) Tosh, The Pursuit of History, p.158. 

14) Idea derived from Tosh, The Pursuit of History, p.168. 

15) John Marincowitz, ‘Rural Production and labour in the western cape, 1838- 

1888 with special reference to the wheat growing districts’ (Ph.D thesis, University of 

London, 1985), p.3. 

16) Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, 

Harvard University Press, 1982), p.xi. 


18) Ibid, p.166. 

19) Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, p.xi; Highlighted Part Author’s Emphasis. 




23) Quotation derived from Tosh, The Pursuit of History, p.104. 

24) Ibid, p.154. 





29) Idea derived from Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, p.263; Highlighted Part 

Author’s Addition. 


31) Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, p.263; Highlighted Part Author’s Additions. 

32) Vijaya Teelock, Bitter Sugar: Sugar & Slavery in 19 th Century Mauritius (Moka, 

21



Mauritius, Mahatma Gandhi Institute Press, 1998),p.10; For example see Anthony J. 

Barker, Slavery and Antislavery in Mauritius, 1810-33, The Conflict between 

Economic Expansion and Humanitarian Reform under British Rule (London, 

MacMillan Press Ltd, 1996), p.13; The exception to this would be Vijaya Teelock, 

Bitter Sugar: Sugar & Slavery in 19 th Century Mauritius; Anthony J. Barker, Slavery 

and Antislavery in Mauritius, 1810-33, The Conflict between Economic Expansion 

and Humanitarian Reform under British Rule; Sadasivam Reddi, ‘Aspects of Slavery 

during British Administration’in Uttam Bissoondoyal & S.Servansing (ed), Slavery in 

the South West Indian Ocean (Moka, Mauritius, Mahatma Gandhi Press, 1989). 


34) Quotation & Idea derived from Christopher Saunders, ‘“Free Yet Slaves”: Prize 

Negroes at the Cape Revisited’ in Nigel Worden and Clifton Crais (eds), Breaking the 

Chains: Slavery and its Legacy in the Nineteenth Century Cape Colony (Johannesburg, 

Witswatersrand University Press, 1994), p.114; 


36) Clause 28: Abolishing Taxes on Manumissions, Observations on the Order in 

Council of the 10 th March 1824, with respect to the possibility of its adoption in the 

Island of Mauritius, the advantages and inconveniences resulting from it, and the 

means of conciliating its clauses with the Colonial interests, without violence or 

danger, Extract from the Deliberation of the 31 st May 1827, Enclosed as Appendix I 

in Despatch No.3, Governor Sir Lowry Cole to the Right Honourable Lord Viscount 

Goderich, Mauritius, 20 th October, 1827, British Parliamentary Papers, 1828, 

Vol.XXVII, p.345. 

37) Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, p.262. 

38) Shell, Children of Bondage: A Social history of the Slave Society at the Cape of 

Good Hope, 1652-1838 (Johannesburg, Witswatersrand University Press, 1994), 

p.383. 

39) Ibid, p.383. 

40) Satyendra Peerthum, ‘The Frenzy for Freedom: A Study of Manumission in 

British Mauritius during the Last Years of Slavery and the Apprenticeship Period, 

1827-1839’, Journal of Mauritian Studies, New Series, Vol 1, No.2 (Forthcoming 

December 2002), p.1-2/4-6/10-11. 

41) Rene Kuczynski, Demographic Survey of the British Colonial Empire, Vol 2, Part 

4: Mauritius and Seychelles (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1948-1949), Footnote 

5, below the Manumission Table, p.763; See also Peerthum, ‘The Frenzy for 

Freedom: A Study of Manumission in British Mauritius during the Last Years of 

Slavery and the Apprenticeship Period, 1827-1839’, Journal of Mauritian Studies, 

New Series, Vol 1, No.2, p.4-6. 

42) Bank, The Decline of Urban Slavery at the Cape, 1806 To 1843, p.170. 

43) Barry Higman, Slave Populations of the British Caribbean, 1807-1834 (Baltimore, 

USA, John Hopkins University Press, 1984), p.690. 

44) Author’s Analysis 

45) Commissioner Bigge, ‘Report upon the Slaves and the State of Slavery at the 

Cape of Good Hope’, Reproduced in George McCall Theal, Records of the Cape 

Colony, Vol 35 (London, Government of the Cape Colony, 1905), p.361. 

46) Orlando Patterson, The Sociology of Slavery: An Analysis of the Origins, Development, 

and Structure of Negro Slave Society in Jamaica, 2 nd Edition (London, 

England, Associated University Presses, 1975), p.90. 

47) Higman, Slave Populations of the British Caribbean, p.381. 

48) Calculated from Return of all Manumissions effected by Purchase, Bequest, or 

otherwise, since the 1 st of January 1808-1822, Enclosed in a despatch from Governor 

Farquhar to the Earl Bathurst, 22nd July 1822, in British Parliamentary Papers, 

1823, XVIII (89), p.125; Kuczynski, Demographic Survey of the British Colonial 

Empire, p.762-763. 


50) Mauritius Archives, MA/ID 2/No.3, Return of the Numbers of Manumissions 

effected by Purchase, Bequest, or Otherwise from 1 st January 1821 to June 1826. 


52) Commissioner Bigge, Report upon the Slaves and the State of Slavery at the 

Cape of Good Hope, p.361-362; Bank, The Decline of Urban Slavery at the Cape, 

1806 To 1843, p.179-181. 



55) Statement showing the Number of Slaves Emancipated in each year since 1814 

to the end of 1826, British Parliamentary Papers , 1828, XXVII, p.367 

56) Isobel Eirlys Edwards, Towards Emancipation: A Study in South African Slavery 

(Cardiff, Gomerian Press), p.153. 

57) Higman, Slave Populations of the British Caribbean, p.690; It is ironic that 

Higman’s figures show that the annual manumission rate was declining during the 

late 1810 and early 1820s, because, as it was mentioned before, Patterson explains 

that during the early nineteenth century, manumission laws were being made less 

draconian. For example, the slaveowner could free their slaves by will without the 

fear that his inheritors would nullify his action, See Patterson, The Sociology of 

Slavery, p.90. This clearly shows that even though their was a slight easing in the 

Jamaican manumission laws, the number of slaves who were freed by their owners


was gradually declining between 1817 and 1823, and it would only increase again 

around 1826, See Higman, Slave Populations of the British Caribbean, p.690. 


59) Statement showing the Number of Slaves Emancipated in each year since 1814 

to the end of 1826, British Parliamentary Papers , 1828, XXVII, p.367 

60) Teelock, Bitter Sugar, p.99. 


Cape of Good Hope, p.361. 


63) G.J. Rogers, Registrar and Guardian of Slaves, to Lieutenant Governor Richard 

Bourke, Report of the Proceedings of the Registrar and Guardian of Slaves at the 

Cape of Good Hope, from the 1 st August to the 25 th December 1826, Enclosed in 

Despatch from Lieutenant-Governor Richard Bourke to Earl Bathurst, Cape Town, 

January 13 th , 1827, British Parliamentary Papers, 1829, XXV (335), p.71. 

64) Bank, The Decline of Urban Slavery at the Cape, 1806 To 1843, p.180-181. 


Cape of Good Hope, p.361; Bank, The Decline of Urban Slavery at the Cape, 1806 

To 1843, p.181. 


Cape of Good Hope, p.363; Mason, ‘“Fit For Freedom”’, p.506-516. 


68) Barry Higman, Slave Population and Economy in Jamaica, 1807-1834 (Cambridge, 

Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 178-179 Higman, Slave Populations 

of the British Caribbean, p.381; Highlighted Part Author’s Emphasis and Analysis. 

69) Patterson, The Sociology of Slavery, p.91 


71) Return of Enfranchisements confirmed by His Excellency the Governor of 

Mauritius, between the 20 th June 1828 and the 20 th June 1829, G.A. Barry, Chief 

Secretary to the Government, Chief Secretary’s Office, Port-Louis, 1 st July 1829, 

Enclosure No.2 in the Report of the Protector and Guardian of Slaves, to His 

Excellency Lieutenant-General, the Honourable Sir Charles Colville, G.C.B.Governor 

and Commander-in-Chief, & c. from 20 th March to 24 th June 1829, Enclosed in 

Despatch No.1, from Lieutenant-General Sir Charles Colville, to Secretary Sir George 


Murray, Mauritius, 3 rd September 1829, British Parliamentary Papers, 1830-1831, 

XV (262), p.57. 


73) Aptheker, American Negro Slave Revolts: Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, Gabriel, 

and Others, p.140. 

74) Teelock, Bitter Sugar, p.221. 

75) Idea derived from Ibid, p.221. 

76) Robert Shell, Children of Bondage, p.xlii 

77) Ibid, p.371-372. 

78) Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, p.98; In this part of his academic study on 

slave societies, Patterson is discussing and analyzing the ideas of Hegel on the slaves, 

the German philosopher from the late 18 th century. 

79) Eric Foner, Nothing But Freedom (Baton Rouge, Louisiana University Press, 

1983), p.6. 

80) Author’s Analysis; Quotation derived from John Mason, ‘Social Death and 

Resurrection: Conversion, Resistance, and the Ambiguities of Islam in Bahia and the 

Cape’ (Seminar Paper presented at the University of Witswarsrand Institute for 

Advanced Social Research, 14 th August 1995), p.47. 

81) Teelock, Bitter Sugar, p.220; John Mason, ‘“Fit for Freedom”: The Slaves, 

Slavery, and Emancipation in the Cape Colony, South Africa, 1806 to 1842’ (Ph.D 

thesis, Yale University, 1992), p.506-516. 


83) Observations of the Commissioners of Inquiry upon the proposed Ordinance in 

Council, for improving of the Slave Population in Mauritius, Enclosure 2 (a) in 

Despatch No.2 from Commissioners W.M.E. Colebrooke and W. Blair to the Right 

Honourable William Huskisson, Mauritius, 19 th May 1828, British Parliamentary 

Papers, 1829, XXV (338), p.23. 

84) Clause 29: Allowing a slave to purchase his freedom invito Domino, Observations 

on the Order in Council of the 10 th March 1824, with respect to the possibility of its 

adoption in the Island of Mauritius, the advantages and inconveniences resulting 

from it, and the means of conciliating its clauses with the Colonial interests, without 

violence or danger, Extract from the Deliberation of the 31 st May 1827, Enclosed as 

Appendix I in Despatch No.3, Governor Sir Lowry Cole to the Right Honourable 

23



Lord Viscount Goderich, Mauritius, 20 th October, 1827, British Parliamentary 

Papers, 1828, XXVII, p.349. 


86) Deryck Scarr, Slaving and Slavery in the Indian Ocean (London, MacMillan 

Press, 1998), p.63. 

87) Teelock, Bitter Sugar, p.220-221. 

88) MA/HA 73, Appendix G, No.163/No.8, Abstract of District Returns of Slaves in 

Mauritius at the Time of the Emancipation in the Year 1835 in Report of the 

Immigration Labour Committee in Reports of the Immigrant Labour Committee for 

1845. 

89) MA/RA 833, Report of Percy Fitzpatrick, Stipendiary Magistrate of Port-Louis, 

Colonel George F, Dick, Colonial Secretary, 10 th February, 1846. 


Colonel George F, Dick, Colonial Secretary, 10 th February, 1846; MA/HA 73, 

Appendix G, No.163/No.8, Abstract of District Returns of Slaves in Mauritius at the 

Time of the Emancipation in the Year 1835. 

91) Eugene Bernard, ‘Les Africains de L’Ile Maurice: Essai sur les Nouveaux 

Affranchis de l’Ile Maurice’, in Archives Coloniales, Vol II (Port Louis, Imprimerie 

de Maurice, 1890), p.562; Mauritius Archives, MA/HA 73, Appendix G, No.163/ 

No.8, Abstract of District Returns of Slaves in Mauritius at the Time of the Emancipation 

in the Year 1835. 

92) Mauritius Archives, MA/RA 833, Report of Percy Fitzpatrick, Stipendiary 

Magistrate of Port-Louis, Colonel George F, Dick, Colonial Secretary, 10 th February, 

1846; Mauritius Archives, MA/HA 73, Appendix G, No.163/No.8, Abstract of 

District Returns of Slaves in Mauritius at the Time of the Emancipation in the Year 

1835. 


94) E. Hengherr, ‘Emancipation and After: A Study of Cape Slavery and the Issues 

Arising from It, 1830-1843’ (M.A thesis, University of Cape Town, 1953), Appendix 

A, p.124. 


96) Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study, p.263-264. 


98) Calculated from For the Cape Colony See No.4, List of Slaves who have presented 

their Acts of Enfranchisement to the Protector and Guardian of Slaves for 

Registration in his Office from the 25 th June to the 24 th December 1829, inclusive, 

Report of the Protector and Guardian of Slaves for the Island of Mauritius and its 

Dependencies for the half year ending 24 th December 1829, British Parliamentary 

Papers, 1830-1831, XV (262), p.186-192; For Mauritius See No.4, List of Confirmative 

Acts of Enfranchisement registered in the Protector and Guardian of 

Slaves’ Office between the 24 th December 1829 and the 24 th June 1830 inclusive, 

To His Excellency Lieutenant the Honourable Sir Charles Colville, G.C.B. Governor 

and Commander in Chief, The Protector and Guardian of Slaves Report, from the 

25 th December 1829 to the 24 th June 1830, Enclosure No.1, in Despatch No.7 from 

Lieutenant-General Sir Charles Colville to the Right Honourable Sir G. Murray, 

Mauritius, 9 th August 1830, British Parliamentary Papers, 1830-1831, XV (262), 

p.310-321. 

99) Baron D’Unienville, Statistique de l’ile Maurice et des dependences: Suivie 

d’une Notice Historique sur cette Colonie et d’un Essai sur l’ile de Madagascar, Vol 

I, 1st Edition (Paris, 1838), p.276-279; See Also Barker, Slavery and Antislavery in 

Mauritius, 1810-1833, Appendix E: Ethnicity in 1826, E1 to E2, E5 to E8, p.178/ 

180-181. 


101) No.4, List of Slaves who have presented their Acts of Enfranchisement to the 

Protector and Guardian of Slaves for Registration in his Office from the 25 th June to 

the 24 th December 1829, inclusive, British Parliamentary Papers, 1830-1831, XV 

(262), p.186-192; No.4, List of Confirmative Acts of Enfranchisement registered in 

the Protector and Guardian of Slaves’ Office between the 24 th December 1829 and 

the 24 th June 1830 inclusive, British Parliamentary Papers, 1830-1831, XV (262), 

p.310-321. 

102) D’Unienville, Statistique de l’ile Maurice et de ses Dependences, Vol I, p.276- 

279. 


104) Shell, Children of Bondage, p. 393. 


106) Authors’s Analysis; For the Cape Colony See British Parliamentary Papers, 

1830-1831, XV (262), p.186-192; For Mauritius See British Parliamentary Papers, 

1830-1831, XV (262), p.310-321. 

107) George M. Fredrickson, White Supremacy: A Comparative Study in American 

and South African History (New York, Oxford University Press, 1981), p.117. 








p.310-321; Percentages for the main ethnic groups of the Slave Population derived


from D’Unienville, Statistique de l’ile Maurice et de ses Dependences, Vol I, p.276- 

279. 

110) Fredrickson, White Supremacy, p.117; Mary Rayner, ‘Wine and Slaves: The 

Failure of an Export and the Ending of Slavery in the Cape Colony, South Africa, 

1806-1834’ (Ph.D. thesis, Duke University, 1986), p.58-65; Highlighted Part 

Author’s Emphasis. 

111) Barker, Slavery and Antislavery in Mauritius, 1810-1833, p.65/68-69; Richard 

B.Allen, ‘Marronage and the Maintenance of Public Order in Mauritius, 1721- 

1835’, Slavery and Abolition, 4, 3 (1983), p.220. 


113) Higman, Slave Population and Economics of Jamaica, p.177. 

114) Blackburn, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, 1776-1848, p.427. 

115) Robin Blackburn, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, 1774-1848 (London, 

Bookcraft Ltd, 1988), p.427; Higman, Slave Population and Economics of Jamaica, 

p.177. 

116) Worden, ‘Slavery and Emancipation in Mauritius and at the Cape: Towards a 

Regional Comparative Study’, p.14. 

117) Barker, Slavery and Antislavery in Mauritius, p.67. 

118) Bank, The Decline of Urban Slavery at the Cape, 1806 To 1843, p.232; Mason, 

‘“Fit for Freedom”’, p.36. 

119) Blackburn, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, p.427. 


121) Reddi, ‘Aspects of Slavery during British Administration’, p.108. 

122) Teelock, Bitter Sugar, p.63/46-52; Dulary Peerthum, ‘Unit Planning: Illegal 

Slave Trade in Mauritius’ (Post-Graduate Certificate in Education dissertation, 

Mauritius Institute of Education, 1985), p.4-9/29-31/34-51/54-56/60-62. 









p.310-321. 

125) D’Unienville, Statistique de l’ile Maurice et de ses Dependences, Vol I, p.276- 

279; See Also Barker, Slavery and Antislavery in Mauritius, 1810-1833, Appendix 

E: Ethnicity in 1826, E1 to E2, E5 to E8, p.178/180-181. 

126) Bank, The Decline of Urban Slavery at the Cape, 1806 to 1843, p.186-187/ 

232. 


128) Blackburn, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, p.427. 


130) Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, p.269; Frederick P. Bowser, an American 

slave historian, while studying Latin American societies during the late sixteenth and 

first half of the seventeenth centuries, explained “that manumission, in an age when 

few questioned the morality of slavery, was largely an urban phenomenon”, See 

Frederick P.Bowser, ‘The Free Person of Color in Mexico City and Lima: 

Manumission and Opportunity, 1580-1650’, in Stanley L. Engerman & Eugene D. 

Genovese (eds), Race and Slavery in the Western Hemisphere: Quantitative Studies 

(Stanford, California, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1975), 

p.334. 


132) Jean de la Battie, Rapport sur les resultats de l’emancipation a Maurice in 

Abolition de l’esclavage dans les colonies britanniques: Rapports receuillis par le 

département de la marine et les colonies Tome II (Paris, Imprimerie Royal, 1842), 

p.401-403. 

133) Calculated from Kuczynski, Demographic Survey of the British Colonial Empire, 

p.773; Teelock, Bitter Sugar, p.100-101. 


Manumission Table, p.763. 

135) De la Battie, Rapport sur les resultats de l’emancipation a Maurice, p.401-403. 

136) Ibid, p.402-403. 



p.763. 


140) Federick Douglass, The Education of Frederick Douglass: Extract from Narrative 

of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, p.43. 

141) Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, p.269. 

142) Nigel Worden, ‘Between Slavery and Freedom: The Apprenticeship Period, 

1834 to 1838’, in Nigel Worden and Clifton Crais (eds), Breaking the Chains: 

Slavery and its Legacy in the Nineteenth Century Cape Colony (Johannesburg, 

25

26 Satyendra Peerthum Gauging the Pulse of Freedom 


Witswatersrand University Press, 1994), p.24; Highlighted Part Author’s Analysis 

and Emphasis. 

143) MA/HA 73, Appendix G, No.163/No.8, Abstract of District Returns of Slaves in 

Mauritius at the Time of the Emancipation in the Year 1835 Enclosed in Report of 

the Immigration Labour Committee in Reports of the Immigrant Labour Committee 

for 1845. 


145) Appendix 10: Statement, showing the Employment of the Persons enumerated in 

the Districts of Mauritius on 1 st August 1846, Report of the Committee appointed to 

conduct and complete the census of the colony (1846): The Mauritius-Census of 

1847, Enclosed in Despatch No.47 from Governor Sir William Gomm to Earl Grey, 

Mauritius, 16 th September, 1848, British Parliamentary Papers, 1849, XXXVII 

(280-II), p.212. 


Colonel George F, Dick, Colonial Secretary, 10 th February, 1846. 





151) MA/RD 16, Police Report of John Finiss, Chief Commissary of Police to George 

F.Dick, Colonial Secretary, August 20 th 1838, Police Department, Port-Louis, 

paragraph 31; See also Satyendra Peerthum, ‘Urban Slavery in Mauritius: The 

Yearning for Freedom: Crime and Maroonage in Colonial Port Louis, c.1829-1839’, 

Weekend, Dimanche 3 février 2002, p.38. 

152) MA/RD 16, Police Report of John Finiss, Chief Commissary of Police to George 

F.Dick, Colonial Secretary, August 20 th 1838, Police Department, Port-Louis, 

paragraphs 37 & 38; See also Satyendra Peerthum, ‘Determined to be Free: Slavery 

& Freedom in Colonial Port Louis, c.1820-1839’ (Paper presented at the University 

of Mauritius Seminar on Slavery and Freedom, January 2002), p.9. 

153) Peerthum, ‘Urban Slavery in Mauritius: The Yearning for Freedom: Crime and 

Maroonage in Colonial Port Louis, c.1829-1839’, Weekend, Dimanche 3 février 

2002, p.38; Peerthum, ‘Determined to be Free: Slavery & Freedom in Colonial Port 

Louis, c.1820-1839’ (Paper presented at the University of Mauritius Seminar on 

Slavery and Freedom, January 2002), p.9. 


Footnotes 1 & 2 below Table 19, p.773. 

155) Andrew Bank, ‘The Erosion of Urban slavery at the Cape, c.1806-1834’, in 

Nigel Worden and Clifton Crais (eds), Breaking the Chains: Slavery and its Legacy in 

the Nineteenth Century Cape Colony (Johannesburg, Witswatersrand University 

Press, 1994), p.80; N.C.Fleurs, ‘A Comparative Study of the Treatment of Slaves at


Collecting and 

disseminating slave 

demographic data 

in Mauritius 

Vijaya Teelock 

University of Mauritius 

Vijaya Teelock Disseminating Slave Demographic Data 

Abstract 

Demographic data on the slave population is extremely hard to collect 

in Mauritius as most slave registration returns for the British Period are 

not in Mauritius while for the French period, colonial administrators 

did not bother to write details of the slave population. Yet studies on 

slavery have extensively reproduced slave data using the ‘Statistics’ of 

Baron d’Unienville published in 1838, but which are in reality only 

‘estimates’. Since 1996, the ‘Origins’ project has attempted to collect 

slave data from registration returns in London and the few available in 

Mauritius, in particular, the last slave returns of the island collected in 

1835. This project is still continuing. With no demographic historian 

existing in Mauritius, the project worked with Prof. Shell from UWC to 

create a demographic database which could be of use in the future to 

historians, demographers and others and to provide researchers with a 

data archive that would allow for more sound demographic analysis of 

the slave population, for the British period. This paper therefore is 

based on the experience gained in this project. It analyses the problems 

faced by those involved in the slave registration process in the 1820s 

and 1830s and the difficulties faced today by those attempting to 

collect, codify and disseminate this data. It will finally look at the use 

and misuse of this data in Mauritius today. 

27

28 Vijaya Teelock 


Introduction 

Slavery has existed on the island of Mauritius since Dutch settlement in 

1638. Under the period of French rule from the 1720s to 1810, a massive 

slave trade developed and slaves were brought from Eastern Africa, 

Madagascar and India. By the time the British took over the island in 

1810, the slave trade had become illegal but thousands of slaves continued 

to be smuggled into Mauritius. Importation of slaves continued until 

the mid 1820s. It stopped when sugar planters trying to convince the 

British Government to equalize sugar tariffs, decided, as evidence of their 

good faith, to stop purchasing illegally-landed slaves. As in other British 

colonies, slavery came to an end in 1835 and some 66, 000 slaves were 

‘freed’. Despite an increasing amount of interest among researchers on the 

history of slavery and the slave trade in Mauritius in recent years, no 

demographic study of the slave population or an assessment of the data 

available has been carried out. Historians and other researchers have used 

whatever statistics they could find or were easily at hand and these have 

been used indiscriminately. The most widely used compilation of statistics 

has been that of Baron d’Unienville’s Statistique de l’ile Maurice published 

in 1838. Not only are the slave data contained in it estimates, but the 

published version of his work are believed to be full of mistakes. The 

manuscript version of his work lies in the Public Record Office and has yet 

to be compared with the published version. With the exception of Richard 

Allen and Barker who have been cautious in their use of d’Unienville’s 

figures, most researchers seem to have adopted them as a reliable and 

accurate set of data. 

There are other problems with the attempt to use data relating to slaves. 

Even if one had completely reliable, accurate official records, the problem 

of illegal slave trading makes analysis at the most tentative. The volume of 

illegal slave trading was sufficiently large to have been the subject of a 

Commission of Enquiry headed by Colebrooke and Blair in 1826. Today, 

historians Richard Allen and Pier Larsson have given their own recent 

estimates of numbers of illegal slave trading in the 1820s and these show 

that previous attempts at calculations have seriously underestimated the 

figures. The same situation exists for the French period of administration. 

Slave trading had been stopped by the Revolutionary government but had 

in fact increased. How are we to make any conclusive statements about for 

example, birth rates, when we do not know the real number of slaves on 

the island? The result is a number of conflicting statistics. Kuczynski’s 

survey of the demographic history of the British Empire’ for 1826, he 

quotes three different figures: 69076, 62634, 69201. 

Today, historians have been trying to grapple with the deficiencies in the 

data. It is even believed by some that it is fruitless to attempt a demographic 

study of the slave population. Yet there are two reasons for taking 

a serious look at demographic data. First not all the data is deficient. 

Second, in recent years a huge interest has been generated in slave family 

reconstruction. Barker’s statement that one cannot even use the first 

‘recorded attribute’ of slaves i.e., their names, because ‘it is highly improbable 

that many of these would have been accepted and used by the 

slaves themselves’ is not quite true. Descendants of slaves did adopt these 

names and they still exist today. Interest in the demographic history of the 

slave population after reading the works of Barry Higman and Robert 

Shell. Robert Shell’s ‘Mapping the Opgaaf’ and Children of Bondage were 

totally inspiring and in Mauritius we wished that we could do the same 

kind of work for Mauritius’. Hence our participation here at the workshops 

on Arcview and why Robert Shell is one of the key participants in the 

Origins project started in 1997. Its aim was to collect all the available data 

on the slave population with a view of making an exhaustive demographic 

study of the slave population. Five years on, the collection of the last slave 

registration of the island in 1835 is almost complete. A ‘Family History 

Unit’ was created at the Nelson Mandela Centre for African Culture where


the database was used to help people trace their slave ancestry. The 

collection process continued with the 1823 registration returns, but then 

slowed down as other returns were in London and funds not available for 

their collection. Only a trickle of people first used the database in the first 

few years. However from February 2002 to date, some 15,000 people 

have converged on the Centre to trace their slave ancestry. The reason: 

the announcement by one political party that compensation for the descendants 

of slaves would be given by the Government. It then became 

imperative to prove one’s slave ancestry and this is when the 1835 registration 

returns began to be used. Demographic history and family reconstruction 

for political and academic reasons, therefore, are very much on 

the agenda in Mauritius. We also have more researchers now working on 

different aspects of slavery and incorporating quantitative studies in their 

work such as young historians S. Peerthum and P. Rosunee, working on 

apprentice and manumitted slaves. A study of the demographic data 

available is even more necessary so that future studies of slavery can be 

based on a more accurate assessment of data and a better awareness of 

the pitfalls and possibilities. 

This paper is intended to be more of an introduction to the kind of data 

available on the slave population, based on my own research work for the 

Origins project and some recent studies. It is essentially a survey of the 

statistical data available on the slave population and possibilities and 

weaknesses of its use for analysis and dissemination. It also focuses on the 

period of British administration, because French records on the slave 

population are not available in Mauritius. 

The data on slave population suffer from a number of weaknesses resulting 

from two main factors. First, the lack of systematic records being kept 

and recorded by officials. Second, there was deliberate neglect by some 

who were tied to plantation owning class. This includes personnel in the 

Slave Registry Office, Civil Commissaries, magistrates etc. Records were 

not kept or falsified in many cases by owners, big and small. This situation 

was prevalent in the early period of British rule (1810-1820s) when 

Disseminating Slave Demographic Data 

owners faced with a shortage of labour, tried to hide their illegally imported 

slaves. Fictitious sales were carried out, and slave trade disguised 

as ‘transfers’ from other islands. By the 1830s, more accurate records 

were being kept and more systematic slave registration seems to have 

taken place, although the methods used to illicit information could be 

questioned. The most complete records however, come from, as in the 

British Caribbean, the slave compensation papers. 

Statistical data on the slave population are available from several sources. 

The two main ones include: 

1. Census returns: There are national census returns, which include 

the rest of the population as well. 

2. Slave registration returns made for registration purposes and which 

started under the period of British administration from 1815. The returns 

of slaves need to be distinguished from those of slaves that were registered 

as not all slaves returned were registered. Thus registered slave returns are 

more reliable than simple slave returns. A Slave ‘returned’ was not registered 

if there was suspicion of fraud, if he was suspected of being an 

illegal slave, if the owner had not given proof of ownership. 

In the period of British administration, there were biennial and triennial 

returns conforming to regulations set in other British slave colonies. Two 

main reasons existed for the introduction of registration: the first was to 

raise internal revenue as taxes on slaves formed the bulk of internal state 

revenue. The second was to check for illegally-introduced slaves. 

3. Tax rolls from the Internal Revenue. The Collector of Customs never 

considered these to be reliable. According to Robert Barclay, in a report 

dated 7 March 1827, he stated that: 

29



‘returns of slave proprietors have never been considered accurate…it 

is in the interests to diminish the number of slaves since he has to pay 

taxes....is especially unwilling when there are a number of infants and 

aged slaves who are a charge rather than a productive profit.’ 

But if in the 1820s owners wanted to hide the real number of slaves in 

their possession, the situation was very different when issues of compensation 

came up. Instead of hiding slaves owners now wanted to show as 

many slaves as possible, in particular the labourers and field hands whose 

value in terms of compensation money was higher than the rest. 

4. Estimates by external observers: Milbert for example, gave detailed 

figures for 1806 and which he stated to have come from the ‘census’ but 

no census of that year exists in the Archives. 

5. Records of births, deaths and marriages. These are scanty for the 

slave population. The information is found scattered in: 

a. the registration returns but recorded very erratically and were 

included when clerks were provided a particular piece of information. 

b. there are also two registers of birth, death and marriage records 

starting from 1790s up to the 1835 but many pages are missing or torn. 

They are incomplete because Civil Commissaries did not perform their 

duties correctly. District registers were better kept after 1826 when the 

new Order in Council came into force. These registers are to be found in 

the Civil Status Office but are not available for the public to consult. 

c. Parish returns also exist for some areas but not others and for some 

periods and not others. These returns have become a touchy issue in 

Mauritius today as descendants of slaves who today are attempting to 

reconstruct their family history are realizing that even though they may 

have become Christians, their records have not been kept as well as for 

the White population. It has not been possible to find exactly for which 

parish registers are available. These records also only concern those slaves 

who might have been baptized. 

d. Burial registers are also available for some areas but not others. 

Every cemetery has records but many have been destroyed by cyclones, 

fires etc. An attempt is being made to record tomb inscriptions but here 

again, the efforts are directed towards the French settlers and their descendants. 

Cemeteries containing the tombs of British settlers and officials 

or of the non-white population are in an advanced state of neglect. 

Slave registration returns 

The slave registration returns are the most complete sources of statistical 

data available to date. Slave registration had been advocated by the Anti- 

Slavery Society for the West Indies as a method of detecting illegally 

landed slaves. There had been much opposition to this on the part of 

slave-owners in the Caribbean as in Mauritius. The first registration in a 

British slave colony took place in Trinidad in 1813. ‘Designed neglect’ 

was the term used by the ASS described the process of registration both in 

the Caribbean and Mauritius. And this led to a new more rigid system of 

registration to record, births deaths sales, manumissions, marooning, 

marriages etc. 

In the British period there were biennial and triennial returns conforming 

to regulations set in other British colonies. 

Under the provisions of the new Order in Council of 30 January 1826, on 

slave registration, slaves had to be produced too be registered. Previous 

registers had been made without the production of slaves. According to 

the CEE, previous registers could only be useful in disputed cases, but not 

to get an accurate assessment of the details concerning a slave. 

The 1815 registration: problems 

Although the reason behind was to detect illegal slave trading, this continued 

well into the 1820s, heedless of the numerous Orders in Council 

passed for the registration. The Order in Council of 24 September 1814 

was published on 25 April 1815 and an extension was of terms was also 

published to allow for the registration of 7,000 more slaves. In these


returns, hundreds of young Malagasy and Mozambican men aged between 

15 and 20 years were returned: most were without parents or children 

i.e., illegal slaves. There were 51,452 male slaves and 28,594 female 

slaves. The control of the Courts by the slave-owning plantocracy ensured 

that cases of illegal slave dealing went unpunished. Furthermore, owners 

holding illegally landed slaves were not only not prosecuted but their 

ownership of the slaves legalized. In the case of Delphine, the Court of 

Appeal ruled that 3 years prescription confirmed a title to slaves as personal 

property. 

The 1816 Registration 

The evidence of Louis B Michel, Chief Clerk in the Slave Registration 

Office (SRO) since April 1817, related to the problems he had encountered 

in dealing with the slave-owners, particularly the ‘most respectable 

and intelligent’. He stated there were many who could not read and write 

and others who genuinely did not understand the law or its importance, 

and how slaves should be classified. However many also felt that registration 

was a prelude to emancipation. Despite the date limit of 10 th April 

1816, only 7,600 slaves were returned. Not only were half of the owners 

were not in the island others recorded slaves when they were not in a 

situation of being able to possess so many slaves. Others still, had a great 

number of young Africans and Malagasies declared without parents, i.e. 

they were newly arrived. 

The most spectacular evidence in relation to falsification of returns was 

that of Bataille, a famous case and an often quoted example in 

historiography on Mauritius. He had altered the ages, castes, and heights 

in 1816. Worse however was that a thorough investigation into Bataille 

was never held. Michel reported that though he worked side by side with 

Bataille, he was never asked to identify Bataille’s handwriting. Instead the 

enquiry team asked a schoolteacher who did not know Bataille’s handwriting 

to testify. 


In 1816 therefore 85,423 slaves were registered; in 1819, 20 948 were 

registered and in 1822, 7 485 slaves registered. The CEE return no. 3 

however gives 36,393 slaves recensed and in 1825, 43 734 slaves 

recensed. 

The 1818-1820 registrations 

As the CEE reported the slave trade continued unabated between the 

1816 registration and the next in 1818, no comparison was ever made 

between the 1816 and the 1818 returns. If this had been done, the 

frauds could have been detected. Many deaths were not declared; ‘fictitious 

returns were made in anticipation of the means of importing Negroes 

to correspond with them’; no slaves were ever inspected. The result was 

that there were a huge number of unregistered slaves 

In 1820 only 20,948 slaves were registered. In 1822, only 1/10 th of 

slaves were returned and registered. These were accepted as the only 

correct ones as all other returns were rejected. The errors of 1819 were 

never explained in 1822. 

The 1825 registration 

The registration returns of 1825 was made up of the 1822 correct returns 

and not from 1825 returns which were all rejected because they contained 

all the previous errors of the other registration returns. According to 

Draper, the Collector of Customs, in the 1825 returns, 49,455 slaves had 

been returned but not registered. Thus the triennial census of 1825 was 

not registered as by then, the Government had recommended the formation 

of a new Registry founded on inspection. This was the famous Order 

in Council of 30 January 1826. 

Before examining the collection of the 1826 returns, the working of the 

SRO may be examined to better contextualise the collection of slave 

registration data. The Slave Registration Office was housed in the Barracks 

in the center of Port-Louis. But many records were destroyed in hurricanes. 

The hours were from 10 a.m. – 3p.m but the Registrar attended 

31



only a few days a week. He does not seem to have exerted himself much. 

The triennial returns were not examined by him but by his clerks who 

registered slaves if returns were found to be correct. The clerks were 

overworked as owners waited till the last day to fill returns or filled them 

incorrectly or partially. Because of the large number of returns, several 

months elapsed between the submission of returns and their examination. 

The period of submission was even delayed several times. In 1822, for 

example, a 4-month delay was given. Incorrect returns seemed to have 

Rare abolitionist icon of illegal Indian Oceanic Slave Trade to Mauritius, 1826 ( courtesy of Cory Library)


caused confusion in the SRO. The errors originated in the original returns 

where marks, measurements, were incorrect. The SRO also forgot to ask 

for returns for Rodrigues until 1820. 

The 1826 registration returns 

In 1826 the figures for the slave population were as follows: 

69,264 in Mauritius 

6,520 in Seychelles. 

From 1826, the district registers were also better kept than previously. 

But deaths seem to have been exaggerated ‘in contemplation of an actual 

inspection’. Thus the average number of births was estimated at 663 while 

mortality at 600. Also available was the number of slaves according to 

ethnic origin. 

Male Female 

Creoles 17,371 17,461 

Mozambican 15,444 3,713 

Malagasy 8,271 4,396 

Total 41,086 25,570 

Total 66,656 slaves in 1826 

In this new registration however, various proofs of false registration came 

to light. The case of Renouf de la Coudray, a watchman who returned 22 

slaves in 1816 shows how a man could be recorded as having slaves which 

he never actually possessed and ‘of whom he could give no account’. Here 

the Governor Farquhar’s negligence in not strictly enforcing the laws was 

in evidence for according to the CEE, Coudray could get away with this 

because Farquhar granted licenses without requesting proof of property. 


The CEE also recommended that at the time of registration, ‘prize Negroes’ 

of each cargo should be present to identify other illegally landed 

slaves. This was of course never followed through. 

The 1826 registration was thus the most complete yet and carried out 

with more care than ever before, ‘as far as it depends on the officer who 

has superintended it’. Errors existed - particularly in ages and marks of 

imported slaves. 

According to the CEE reports, the increase and decrease of slaves in 

1819, 1822, 1825, 1826 returns amounted to 5980 slaves born, 8,755 

died (in Port-Louis alone, 1,047 died between November 1819 and 

January 1820) and 996 emancipated. The SRO did not have any additional 

information on imported, runway or exported slaves as most of the 

information was with the Customs and with the Police. 

According to John Cooper in a letter to the CEE on 26 January 1828, no 

prosecutions had resulted from the Slave Registration Ordinance. He did 

not ‘interfere’ in the work of the SRO and did not think that any breach 

had been committed. The same opinion was emitted by Draper, Registrar 

pf Slaves who wrote to the CEE on the 1 st February 1828 that there had 

been no breach of the slave laws or false registration to conceal illegally 

landed slaves. Yet breaches had been committed and tried under previous 

Slave Registration Ordinances. 

The updating of records, which could have occurred, with proper compilation 

of civil status records did not occur because very little attention was 

paid by slave-owners in registering the births or deaths of their slaves, 

despite the existence of laws on declaration. Births prior to 1 August 1825 

were not declared even after proclamation. Deaths due to the cholera 

epidemic were not recorded in 1819-20 due to confusion reigning at the 

time. Civil Commissaries continued to separate people into ‘racial’ categories: 

‘white’ and ‘coloured’ but this was often based on their own ignorance 

or perceptions of colour: a coloured was any one with a black ancestor 

although some may have looked completely White. It was almost 

33



impossible to distinguish a ‘white Creole’ from a ‘Coloured’ and often 

many Coloured were registered in White registers. Both slave-owners and 

those in charge of collecting the records were to blame: owners did not 

submit returns regularly and Civil Commissaries did not bother to pursue 

the offenders. 

The 1832 registration and 1835 compensation 

returns 

In the 1830s, more accurate records began to be kept. Registration of 

slaves became more systematic and although as stated earlier, the methods 

used could be doubted, they are our only statistical source on slaves for 

the 1830s. In 1835, because of the decision to grant compensation to 

owners, slave registration was even more detailed and the 1835 registration 

returns today constitutes our most complete record of slaves in Mauritius. 

Mylius the Registrar of Slaves testified on oath that not all returns had 

been sworn to (as laid down in regulations) because many owners in 

country districts had refused to pay 10 shillings on each return: 20, 997 

slaves had been sworn and paid for but 27 011 had not. 

George Malloney Elliott testified also that ages of slaves were estimated, 

either by looking at their appearance, accepting the owners’ estimation. 

The latter tended to be more accurate and it was easier to get nearer to 

the truth when they interviewed the slaves. Most were unable to say precisely 

when they were born, except that they had been born after a particular 

event, the Great Fire of 1816, the Cholera epidemic 1825 etc. 

Despite these weaknesses the data is infinitely more vast and reliable that 

what was produced in the French period. Furthermore certain parts of the 

data are more reliable than other parts. The country of origin or ages are 

difficult to accept but it is possible to make generalizations about slave 

adult populations, manumissions, their spatial distribution, their occupations, 

the male/female ratios etc. Even the fanciful names so much decried 

by historians of slavery can be used, because in many cases the slaves 

adopted these names and their family history can today be quite easily 

traced. 

Conclusion: The use of registration returns 

in demographic study 

As part of the ‘Origins’ Project, a number of families were selected for a 

pilot study on family reconstruction. The families were first asked to 

collect from oral sources and civil stats records information about their 

families in the 20 th century. Most were able to reconstruct their family 

histories all the way to the late 1870s and 1880s. From this period back, 

it became more difficult. We could not connect them to the 1835 returns 

without filling this gap. For some this was achieved by looking at land 

deeds, vaccination certificates, licenses granted, marriage certificates and 

interviewing families: some first names seem to have been passed down 

from generation to generation and so it was possible to state roughly where 

the family was from i.e., which district and sometimes what region within a 

district. Our list narrowed even further for the period between the abolition 

of slavery (1835) and the 1850s. This was a moment of great upheaval 

for the slave population and this is reflected in the demographic 

records. However, family names, names of sugar estates and villages and 

occupations were matched with the 1835 returns and in many cases, this 

proved a success. We still do not know the movements of the descendants 

people between 1835 and 1850 but can safely say they belong to the 

same family. One of the most revealing aspects of this reconstruction was 

the fact that rural families do not seem to have moved out of their areas 

much and so, even today in Mauritius, families continue to live in the 

same regions as they had in the 19 th century. We would like now to 

extend this reconstruction of all slave families using the data being currently 

fed in recent months. With such a small population as Mauritius, we 

hope to achieve this in the coming years.


Breeders or workers? 

slave women in the Cape Colony, 1823-1830 

draft for 4th Avignon Conference on Slavery and Forced Labour 

16-18 October 2002 

Not to be cited without permission 

Prabha Rama 

UWC 

Acknowledgment 

The author is deeply indebted to Professor Robert Shell for his help and 

advice which was invaluable. 

Abstract: 

This paper addresses whether female slaves were valued for their labour 

or for their reproductive capacity in South Africa. In 1981, Claude 

Meillassoux, the anthropologist, argued that the female slave was 

valued more for her labour than for her reproductive capacity on the 

African slave market. Meillassoux based his hypothesis on his own 

research and that of researchers such as Martin Klein, Robert Harms, 

Margaret Strobel and Jan Hogendorn on the infertility of female slaves 

and their contribution as workers, in 19 th and early 20 th century Africa. 

Their research does not support the proposition that the growth and 

maintenance of slave populations were by simple reproduction among 

the slaves themselves. In sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb, the 

inflow of slaves was constant as it was in the New World before the 

abolition of the oceanic slave trade in 1808. However, the abolition did 

not deter inland slavery, which continued to replenish African slave 

populations albeit to a lesser and unknown degree in the Cape Colony. 

In view of this, it would be interesting to see whether Meillassoux’s 

hypothesis applies in the South African context. However, no data has 

yet supported this idea. A statistical analysis using the Cape Archives 

Depot (CAD) Slave Office (SO) 10/18 data set (n= 5,512) is used to test 

Meillassoux’s hypothesis. The Cape data set contains records of individual 

slave transfers which took place between 1823 and 1830 transcribed 

by British clerks during the 1830s for the purpose of compensation 

for Cape slave owners, following the Emancipation Decree of 1833, 

(effective at the Cape on the 1 st December 1838). The data represent the 

entire domestic market of slaves sold at the Cape for eight years. 

Comparing age price structures is one way to test the hypothesis. Meillassoux’s 

hypothesis after 1808 (abolition of the oceanic slave trade), 

especially in the 1820s, is tested by a comparison of age price structure 

profiles for single females to that of mothers sold in joint sales. If the 

price of the mother is less than the price of the single female of the same 

age, then this will validate Meillassoux’s hypothesis. According to 

statistical analysis, female slaves had the highest risk of being sold in 

the 45-49 age group in any given year. The differential risk was 

observed across all the Cape districts. In contrast, the relative probability 

of male slaves being sold in the 45-49 age group in any given year was 

not significant or different when compared to the other age groups. 

35

36 Prabha Rama 


Introduction 

The value of female slaves is a contentious issue in the African slave 

context. The historian, J.D. Fage, made a proposition in 1980 that the 

female capacity to procreate gives them a greater value than males on the 

African slave market. 1 The French anthropologist, Claude Meillassoux, 

argued a year later that female slaves were valued more for their labour 

than for their reproductive capacity. 2 Sources of data on fertility in slave 

societies are scarce and unreliable but cliometricians can make inferences 

with the available data by studying the demographics within slave 

populations and normal populations. As in a “normal” population, the 

perpetuation in numbers of the slave population also depends on mortality, 

fertility and migration rates. In a slave population, the outmigration rate is 

negligible and it would be more accurate to speak of the “sale” rate. The 

population—to all intents and purposes—is closed. However, one could say 

that sales sometimes entailed a move. Although fertility and mortality are 

the main determinants of all population growth—in a slave population, it is 

different because the growth depends on how and when slaves were 

acquired: before or after the abolition of the oceanic slave trade in 1808. 

The question therefore arises out of concern whether slave populations 

were replenished continuously by the acquisition of new slaves or by 

biological reproduction in the Cape Colony. 

The geography of the sale data 

Most slave sales took place in the Western Cape region of the Cape 

Colony in the 1823-1830 period and slaves were registered according to 

the districts in which they were sold. Whereas the Western Cape reflected 

5 137 slave sales in six districts, the Eastern Cape reflected only 375 sales 

in five districts—a substantial difference between the two regions. The 

Western Cape was situated in the southwestern part of the Cape Colony 

(See Fig.1). Cape Town was the only district with an urban character and 

was the centre of trade in the colony. To the north of Cape Town, were the 

fertile wine and wheat growing districts of Stellenbosch, Clanwilliam and 

Worcester. These were the districts in which most slaves and the free 

population was found. Since huge mountain ranges prevent moist atmospheric 

movement in to the interior, arable agriculture was only possible in 

the Western Cape. The climate determined the choice of crop or economic 

activity, which in turn influenced the sale and distribution of the slaves. 

Figure 1 Map of Cape Colony from Theal


The Eastern Cape region was characterised by recurring and periodic 

droughts, which made the area suitable for sheep and cattle farming. 3 The 

droughts had such serious ramifications for the slave demography in the 

Eastern Cape that it prompted Lord Charles Somerset, the British governor 

at the Cape to make the following statement: “slaves are the only 

property of value in this colony; land is of none in comparison”. 4 Outside 

the Western Cape, Graaf-Reinet had the largest slave population in the 

colony because by 1827, this rural district had 2 361 slaves. 5 Most 

historians of South African slavery assume there were no slaves in the 

Eastern Cape because slave-holding was illegal there. However, as the 

baptismal registers show, slaves were held quite openly. 

Baptismal register in Grahamstown showing slave woman being baptised 


Meillassoux’s 

hypothesis 

Meillassoux stated 

that “in slavery 

women were valued 

above all as workers, 

mostly because 

female tasks were 

predominant in 

production and 

consequently, the 

demand for female 

labour was greater 

than for male labour”. 

6 He argues 

Eastern Cape 

16.2% 

Worcester to George 

28.2% 

Western Cape 

55.5% 

further that “their potential for reproduction is not supported by objective 

data”. He based his hypothesis on his own research and that of Martin 

Klein, Robert Harms, Margaret Strobel and Jan Hogendorn on the infertility 

of female slaves and their contribution as workers, in 19 th and early 

20 th century Africa. 7 Their research does not support the proposition that 

the growth and maintenance of slave populations were by simple reproduction 

among the slaves themselves. For example, Klein’s calculations 

showed that there was less than one child for each slave woman. 8 If half of 

these children were girls, the “gross rate of reproduction”(GRR) of the 

slave population would not be above 0.5 and therefore the slave numbers 

could not have increased naturally. Statistical figures in 1889 by Harms in 

the commercial towns of the Middle Zaire show that the GRR was 0.12 

compared to 0.55 at Mombasa. 9 According to Hogendorn, the children of 

slave women, working on the plantations of Sokoto, were only allowed to 

be accessed and fed with the permission of a guard. 10 At Gumbu, the 

same methods were employed where children were buried up to their 

necks with sand. 11 Even Ralph Austen (1982), in his investigation of the 

trans-Saharan slave trade, which targeted mostly female slaves, claims that 

37



there was “a virtually zero reproduction rate amongst slaves—they bore 

few children who survived…”. 12 For example, Austen calculated that 

between 1300 and 1850, North African Islamic slave populations needed 

replenishment at the rate of 15% per annum because of both high mortal- 

Age price curves for mothers and non-mothers 

Thousands (pence) 

Figure 3 

20 

10 

0 

This area constitutes the discount price for slave mothers 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 

single years 

Age/price curve for female slaves with children 

Females without children 

Females with children 

Sources: CAD, Slave Office, "Sales and transfers", 10/18 (n=5,512) 

ity and manumission rates—they did not reproduce themselves. 13 

Age price structure profiles 

Meillassoux’s hypothesis may be tested by a comparison of age price 

structure profiles for single females to that of females sold in joint sales 

using data from the Cape data set. 14 The slave data shows that female 

slaves were sold in single units or in joint sale units. A price was allocated 

to a single female slave and to a mother in a joint sale. Manumitted female 

slaves did have children but these progeny did not join the slave force. 

Between 1808 and 1823, slave family members were sold separately 

because the slave owners relied heavily on the domestic slave trade. An 

Order-in-Council, passed in 1823, prevented children up to the age of 

sixteen, from being sold separately. 15 In the joint sales, the price of the 

mother was disaggregated from the joint sale to arrive at a single female 

slave price. The price of a child was derived from the mean price of 

orphans per comparative age. Then the disaggregated price was calculated 

by subtracting the price of the children from the joint sale price. The price 

for a slave child at birth was positive because of the expectation of future 

value (see Figure 2). 16 Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s statistical 

data on the age-price and price earnings profiles for males in the Old 

South, show that net earnings were negative during ages 0 to 8, but prices 

were positive. 17 They further state that “the positive price at birth reflected 

slave owners’ expectation of positive earnings in future years”. 18 The price 

for the single female, peaked at between 18 and 25 years and that for the 

female with children, peaked at between 12,5 and 15 years (see Figure 

3). 19 Thereafter, the graph reflects a decline in prices for both female 

slave categories because according to Fogel and Engerman, “the price of a 

slave depended not only on the amount of net earnings but on the length 

of the period over which she would produce these earnings”. 20 In the Cape 

Colony, the decline was influenced by the amelioration of slave legislation 

from 1823, the devaluation of the Rixdollar and the discounted price for 

joint sales. The area between the rise and the decline constitutes the 

discount price for slave mothers. The decline in price and age ratio between 

the single female and the mother, was approximately proportionate— 

a further indication of the female’s need for her working capabilities 

as opposed to her breeding capacities. The New Orleans sales indicate that 

in 1810, “traders were not indifferent to whether women were married, 

but strongly preferred unmarried women” and slave owners were “six 

times more likely to buy an unmarried woman than a married one”. 21


Age/price curve for female slaves with children 

According to the CAD SO 10/18 data set, the mean prices for slave 

mothers varied between approximately 24 000 pence and –2 000 pence 

after disaggregation. The data set reflected the sale prices in the British 

currency where one pound was equal to 240 pence or 20 shillings. 22 The 

differential price in the monetary value of the slave mothers was influenced 

by variables such as age, number of children, their occupation, 

their health status and the district in which they were sold, which would 

depress or inflate the price. Similarly, the differential price between the 

single female slave and the slave mother can be attributed to the same 

variables that influenced the prices for the slave mothers after disaggregation. 

The female slaves (both the female without children and the female 

with children) show a decline in price because they were not valued for 

their reproduction. The 1850 census mortality schedules in the United 

States south indicate that 9,7 % of all deaths among slave women aged 20 

to 29 were due to childbearing. 23 

A further analysis of the age price graph reflects that the highest price in 

pence for single female slaves was in the 18 to 25 age group, an age 

group in which they were the most productive (see Figure 2). 24 In contrast, 

from age 15, the price of the slave mother decreases until she reaches the 

age of 45 years, which is the lowest price for a female slave— so much so 

that it is even lower than the zero-age price. However, after 45, her value 

increases dramatically until at the age of 56, her value exceeds that of the 

single female slave (see Figure 3). 25 This could be due to the fact that her 

services as cook, midwife and nursemaid were enhanced because she 

would bring into the settler household her domestic knowledge and stability. 

In addition, it is highly likely that the mistress would have had an 

influence in the older female slave’s purchase since she would not have to 

compete for the master’s sexual favours because most female slaves enjoyed 

the same legal status as the owner’s wife in a patriarchal household 

under Roman Dutch law. 26 Since the slave mother was past menarche, 

there would be no offspring to remind the mistress of her husband’s acts 


of miscegenation. The older slave mother was also unlikely to abscond 

from her duties. Therefore, her value as a worker and her domestic skills 

were truly recognised after the age of 45. In the southern American 

plantation household, “Mammy” was selected for her worth and reliability. 

27 Mammy’s old age was a metaphor for asexuality, which put her 

“beyond the pale of the carnal, above the taint of Jezebel”. 28 

Cape colony slave population during sale period, 1823-1830 

35 Thousands 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1823 

1824 

1825 

1826 

1827 

Source: Robert C.-H. Shell, Children of Bondage , page 448. 

1828 

1829 

1830 

Notice declining proportion of 

20% 

adult male slaves after slave 

trade is abolished in 1807 

0% 

1807 

1808 

1809 

1810 

1811 

1812 

1813 

1814 

1815 

1816 

1817 

1818 

1819 

1820 

1821 

1822 

1823 

1824 

1825 

1826 

1827 

1828 

1829 

1830 

The negative price associated to the slave mother between 38 to 50 years 

can be attributed to the number of children she had borne that tended to 

erode her value in the discounted price for a joint sale in an auction. The 

price for slaves dropped between 1826 and 1828 (with the introduction of 

Ordinance 19 in 1826 and Ordinance 50 in 1828), which might have 

also influenced her price negatively. From age 56, her value in monetary 

terms exceeded the value of the single female slave for the first time. The 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

Girls 

Boys 

Adult females 

Adult males 

39



single female slave’s price increased after 54 but not as sharply as that of 

the slave mother’s. This differential increase again reflects how much the 

slave mother’s skills were valued in the settler household. 

Thomas Malthus (1798) considered the minimum doubling time of a 

normal population at 25 years. 29 The Cape slave population showed a 

dramatic increase in the number of slave women and children at the Cape, 

a number, which was largely static before 1808. According to Robert 

Shell, the Cape slave population at 1808, was 29 843 in the whole Cape 

Colony while in 1834, the year of emancipation, the slave population 

stood at 36 278. 30 What is of enormous interest though is that in 1808, 

22% of the total slave population were children, but by 1830, they comprised 

40% of the total slave population (see Figure 4). This is a near 

doubling of their population in 22 years, which exceeds Malthus’s estimate 

of the doubling time. 31 This growth is phenomenal in a normal, let alone a 

slave society. 32 The growth rate is indicative of a society in a dramatic and 

new demographic phase. This was natural reproduction and not forced 

reproduction. In many instances, the father of many slave children was the 

slave owner himself but the status of the progeny of the slave owner was 

determined by uterine descent. 33 Eugene Genovese argues that one explanation 

for the growth in the United States slave population is that their 

conditions of daily living after the abolition of the slave trade improved: as 

long as slaves were readily and cheaply available on the market, they were 

subject to abuse. 34 After the abolition, slaves were treated benignly because 

of their demographic scarcity, which would lead to decreasing 

mortality and the encouragement of fertility. 

Figure 4 

At the Cape, all the slaves who were sold between 1823 and 1830 were 

coded for occupations. The extent of the dominance of slaves sold in the 

service and manual labour groups is borne out of the fact that they constituted 

73.5% of all the slave sales with an occupation. No female slave was 

sold in the agricultural occupational category, according to the CAD SO 

Source: CAD SO 10/18 

Figure 5


10/18 data set. This is in contrast to the division of slave labour that 

existed in the rest of Africa. For example, Strobel noted that African 

women were occupied in most agricultural activities. 35 The status of female 

slaves at the Cape was a peculiar phenomenon in the division of labour in 

a slave society. In an absence of a plantation economy, female slaves were 

employed mostly in the domestic environment unlike their counterparts in 

the southern plantations of America who performed agricultural work. 36 

Instead of looking towards the female womb to increase the slave numbers, 

Cape slave owners often employed the services of “Free Blacks”, 37 

“Prize Negroes” 38 and the indigenous Khoi-San as indentured labourers 

and as apprentices to suppress labour costs. In addition, the Stellenbosch 

winegrowers regularly hired their slaves to grain farmers for the wheat 

harvest, which came in during November and December as the grapes 

were picked well after the wheat harvest. 39 Slave labour alternated between 

the regular needs of grain growing and wine farming, which led to 

slaves being overworked as they were shifted from one sector to the 

other. 40 It seemed that the sexual allocation of labour was not rigidly 

applied in rural and frontier districts because female slaves were routinely 

employed in the fields with men to complete the harvest in the set time. 41 

For example, Katie Jacobs, a slave woman at the Cape, performed arduous 

manual labour by donning men’s clothing. 42 Therefore, it was cheaper 

to supplement slave labour with free labour than to raise a slave from birth 

on small to medium farming enterprises. 

Regional patterns 

Slave sales are affected by the supply and demand mechanism, which 

depends on the needs of the buyer and seller, and the availability of 

slaves. As such, slave sales are characterised by the demographic profiles 

of its human merchandise and by somatic factors such as origin and 

descent at the Cape. 43 However, the data does not capture the origin and 

descent of the slaves. Slave sales are not uniform across the geographical 

topography of a region either, as demonstrated in the Western Cape and 

the Eastern Cape of the Cape Colony, according to the Cape data set. An 


important element of the sales was the age gender structure profiles of the 

slaves, which enhanced or decreased the risk of being sold—this varied 

across the Cape districts. A statistical analysis of the relative probability for 

the female slave of being sold in any given year, was the highest in the 45- 

49 age group (see Figure 5). 44 In the Western Cape, the relative probability 

of a female slave being sold in any given year in the 45-49 age group 

was in the Cape Town district 26%, in Stellenbosch 31%, in Worcester 

22%, in Swellendam 11% and in George 17%. Similarly, in the Eastern 

Cape, the relative probability for a female slave of being sold was 38% in 

Graaf-Reinet, 45% in Beaufort and 3% in Uitenhage. 45 

The differential risk for the female slaves is pronounced as this observation 

is not isolated to one district and corresponds with an upswing in the 

price for slave mothers. A uniform pattern is observed across all the older 

districts in the Western Cape, except Clanwilliam, which had a small 

slaveholding. The Eastern Cape districts display an erratic pattern because 

Albany (1816), Beaufort (1818) and Somerset (1825) were established 

well after 1808. Fewer female slaves were to be found in the frontier 

districts while the older Western Cape districts reflect an established slave 

population. Besides being occupied overwhelmingly in household chores, 

the older slave women possessed artisanal skills, such as needlework, 

knitting and culinary expertise, which would be useful in a Cape settler 

household. Since female slaves had a lower risk of being sold in the other 

age groups, this also enhanced the age price profile comparison test. 

In contrast to the differential risk of female slaves being sold in the 45-49 

age group, the relative probability of male slaves being sold in this age 

group in any given year is not significant or different when compared to 

males in the other age groups—despite that twice as many males to females 

were sold in this age group. 46 Only in the rural districts of Worcester, 

George and Swellendam in the Western Cape do male slaves show an 

above average risk of being sold in the 45-49 age group. They could have 

41



been sold into the Eastern Cape region as shepherds and herders because 

the main farming activity in these districts was cattle and pastoral farming—which 

was also less arduous. 

Conclusion 

In summary, the analysis of the CAD SO 10/18 data set confirms that 

female slaves were valued for their labour and not for their reproductive 

capacity in the Cape Colony after the abolition of the oceanic slave trade. 

Meillassoux’s hypothesis that female slaves were valued for their labour on 

the African slave market also applies in the South African context. Comparing 

the age price profiles of the single female slave to that of the mothers 

sold in joint sales affirms that female slaves were not valued for their 

progeny. In addition, the probability that female slaves ran the highest risk 

of being sold in the 45-49 age group in any given year, to that of male 

and female slaves in other age groups enhances the finding of the age 

price profiles analysis of female slaves. 

Fogel and Engerman’s analysis of slave earning profiles in the Old South, 

show that slaves were so productive that it was unnecessary for the owners 

to engage in “slave-breeding”. Genovese is of the view that the growth of 

slave populations should be assessed by their conditions of daily living. To 

this end, Genovese argued that after the oceanic slave trade, mortality 

rates fell and fertility rates rose due to increased attention to the health 

and comfort of the slaves, as an explanation for the growth in the United 

States slave population. Although, the social, economic and political 

conditions under which slaves lived and worked, in the 1820s in the Cape 

Colony was dissimilar to that of slave societies in Africa or the New World, 

they were nevertheless valued for their labour. 

Meillassoux’s hypothesis can also be confirmed or rejected by calculating 

the General Fertility Rate (GFR), which was used by his co-researchers. 

However, there are special problems in measuring fertility. Although there 

are statistical records on live births and infant mortality rates at the Cape 

in the 19 th century, the GFR is not restrictive enough for specific analysis. 

The Net Reproductive Rate (NRR) would be the best indicator whether a 

population is in decline or on a rise. 

Cliometric analysis in slave fertility has always been controversial. Fertility 

is an elusive and complex theme that is not easily pinned down. If fertility 

in slaves is observed on an individual level, it may have seemed that 

female slaves were valued more for their reproductive capacity. However, 

on a collective level, the opposite was true. Therefore, the strength of 

cliometric methodology is that overall patterns and structures in society 

can be illuminated, which allows one to infer new knowledge from variation 

in the data. 

The research shows that slave women were not merely a factor of fertility 

even in a patriarchal society and that these women’s skills were highly 

sought in the domestic market at the Cape. Today, the legacy of the slave 

women still resonates through South African society—many female descendants 

of slave women are still valued for their labour in a domestic 

household.


References 

CAD SO 10/18. Cape Archives Depot Slave Office, 1823-1830 (N=5 512). This file 

contains 5 512 records of individual slave transfers which took place between 1823 

and 1830 transcribed for the purpose of compensation for Cape slave owners at 

emancipation on the 1 st December 1838. 

The data are not sampled but constitute a full record of the original documents in the 

Cape Archives Depot Slave Office 10/18 “Sales and Transfers”. 

Austen, Ralph. “The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade: A Tentative Census,” in Gemery and 

Jan S. Hogendorn, eds., The Uncommon Market. New York: Academic Press, 1982, 

23-76. 

Ballard, Charles. “Drought and Economic Distress: South Africa in the 1800s” Journal 

of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 17. 2 (Autumn 1986), 359-378. 

Bergh, J. and Visagie, J. One Eastern Cape Frontier Zone: 1669-1980. Durban: 

Butterworths, 1985. 

Bird, William W. State of the Cape of Good Hope in 1822. London: John Murray, 1823; 

facsimile reprint, Cape Town: Struik, 1966. 

Elphick, Richard, and Giliomee, Herman. eds. The Shaping of South African Society, 

1652- 1820. Cape Town: Longmans, 1979, revised ed., 1989. 

Fogel, Robert, and Engerman, Stanley. Time on the Cross- Evidence and Methods. A 

Supplement. Boston: Brown and Company, 1974. 

Genovese, Eugene D. “The Treatment of Slaves in Different Countries: Problems in the 

Applications of the Comparative Method,” in Slavery in the New World: A Reader in 

Comparative History, eds., Laura Foner and Eugene Genovese. Englewood Cliffs: 

Prentice-Hall, 1969. Page numbers 

Malthus, T.R. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Anthony Flew (ed.). Pelican 

Classics, 1970 edition. 

Mason, John Edwin, Jr. Fit for Freedom: The Slaves, Slavery, and Emancipation in the 

Cape Colony, South Africa, 1806 to 1842. Ph.D. diss., Yale University, May 1992. 

Meillassoux, Claude. “Female Slavery,” in Women and Slavery in Africa, ed. Claire 

Robertson and Martin Klein. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983, 49-66. 

Morgan, Edmund. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. 

New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1975. 

Shell, Robert C. Children of Bondage. A Social History of the Slave Society at the Cape 

of Good Hope, 1652-1838. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1994. 

Shell, Robert C. ed. “Katie Jacobs: An Early Oral History.” Quarterly Bulletin of the 

South African Library 3 46 (March 1992): 94-99. 

Theal, George McCall. Records of the Cape Colony, 36 vols. Cape Town: C. Struik, 1967 

reprint. 


Watson, Richard L. The Slave Question: Liberty and Property in South Africa. Hanover: 

Wesleyan University Press, 1990. 

White, Deborah G. Ar’n’t I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South. New 

York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985. 

43



ENDNOTES 

1 Claude Meillassoux, “Female Slavery,” in Women and Slavery in Africa, ed. 

Claire Robertson and Martin Klein (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), p. 

49. 

2 Meillassoux, “Female Slavery,” p. 49. 

3 Charles Ballard, “Drought and Economic Distress: South Africa in the 1800’s”, 

Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. XVII. 2 (Autumn 1986), p. 362. 

4 R L. Watson, The Slave Question: Liberty and Property in South Africa (London: 

Wesleyan University Press, 1990), p. 17. 

5 George McCall Theal, Records of the Cape Colony (Cape Town: C. Struik, 1967 

reprint), 30: 488. 


7 Meillassoux, “Female Slavery,” pp. 49-66. 





12 Ralph Austen, “The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade: A Tentative Census,” in 

Gemery and Jan S Hogendorn, eds., The Uncommon Market (New York: Academic 

Press, 1982), pp. 47-50. 

13 Austen, “The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade: A Tentative Census,” p. 50. 

14 There are statistical records on live births and infant mortality rates at the Cape 

in the 19 th century, in W. W. Bird, State of the Cape of Good Hope in 1822 (London: 

John Murray, 1823; facsimile reprint, Cape Town: Struik, 1966), p. 356, cross reference 

p. 107. Therefore, it would have been possible to calculate the GFR at the Cape. 

15 Richard Elphick and Hermann Giliomee, The Shaping of South African Society, 

1652-1840 (Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman, 1989), p.165. 

16 CAD SO 10/18 “Sales and Transfers” (N=5,512). 

17 Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman, Time on the Cross: Evidence and Methods, 

A Supplement (Boston: Brown and Company, 1974), p. 83. 

18 Fogel and Engerman, Time on the Cross, p. 83. 

19 CAD SO 10/18. 



22 From 1971, equal to 100 pence. The sale price was converted to pence to 

facilitate calculations. 


24 CAD SO 10/18. 

25 CAD SO 10/18. 

26 Robert C-H. Shell, Children of Bondage: A Social History of Slavery at the Cape 

of Good Hope, 1652-1838 (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand Press, 1995), p. 398. 

27 Deborah Gray White, Ar’n’t I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South 

(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985), p. 47. 

28 White, Ar’n’t I a Woman? p. 60. 

29 Thomas R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, ed., Anthony Flew 

(Pelican Classics, 1970 edition), p. 21. 

30 Shell, Children of Bondage, p. 448. 

31 See also Bird, State of the Cape of Good Hope, p. 358. 

32 Doubling time is the ratio between the life expectancy at birth and the growth 

rate per annum. The life expectancy in this case is 70. The life expectancy at birth is 

much lower in slave societies. 

33 Daniel Dennijson, “Statement of the laws of the Cape of the Cape of Good Hope 

regarding slavery” (16 March 1813), in Theal, Records of the Cape Colony, 9: 146-161.


34 Eugene Genovese, “The Treatment of Slaves in Different Countries: Problems in 

the Applications of the Comparative Method,” in Slavery in the New World: A Reader in 

Comparative History, eds., Laura Foner and Eugene Genovese (Englewood Cliffs: 

Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 208. 

35 Meillassoux, “Female Slavery,” 

36 Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial 

Virginia (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1975), p. 310. 

37 Originated from the slave population, political exiles and from several hundred 

Chinese convicts, in Shell, Children of Bondage, p. xxxii. 

38 Illegal slaves captured at sea by the royal navy after 1808 and landed at Cape 

Town for liberation, in Shell, Children of Bondage, p. 147. 

39 John Edwin Mason, Jr., Fit for Freedom: The Slaves, Slavery, and Emancipation 

in the Cape Colony, South Africa, 1806 to 1842 (Ph.D. Diss., Yale University, May 

1992), p. 314. 

40 Elphick and Giliomee, The Shaping of South African Society, p. 270. 

41 Mason, Fit for Freedom, p. 311. 

42 Robert Shell, “Katie Jacobs: An Oral History,” Quarterly Bulletin of the South 

African Library, vol.46 no.3 (March 1992), p. 95. 

43 Shell, Children of Bondage, pp. 158-160. 

44 Geographical Information System (GIS) map, Fig. 5. 

45 Through crosstabulation, the relative probabilities were calculated on the 

Statistical Package for Social Sciences Programme (SPSSPC). 

46 CAD SO 10/18. 

45

Session 4a

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?