Corruption Concealed: The Farquhar Era 1810–22
The related issues of the illegal slave trade and the brutality of slavery in Mauritius had been seized on in the 1820s as a useful way of both discrediting former Governor Farquhar and stimulating the antislavery cause. The verdict of history — to the small extent that the issue has been discussed — has been that the antislavery attack on Farquhar and his regime was unjustified but that the depiction of slave atrocities was broadly true. The nature of the slave regime is a question that will be dealt with at length in chapters 4 to 9 below. This chapter is concerned with unravelling the complicated story of the illegal slave trade and the interaction between Farquhar and a handful of British associates, on the one hand, and the Franco-Mauritian plantocracy on the other.
KeywordsSugar Burning Shipping Amid Explosive
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.Gwyn Campbell, ‘Madagascar and Mozambique in the Slave Trade of the Western Indian Ocean 1800–1861’, in William Gervase Clarence-Smith, ed., The Economics of the Indian Ocean Slave Trade in the Nineteenth Century (London. 1989), pp. 166–70; Paul E. Lovejoy, Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 77–8, 238.Google Scholar
- 35.Graham also insists that ‘there is nothing in the Admiralty or Colonial Office correspondence to substantiate the charges delivered with so much passion by men like Fowell Buxton’: Gerald S. Graham, Great Britain in the Indian Ocean: A Study of Maritime Enterprise (Oxford, 1967), pp. 58, 63.Google Scholar
- 69.Robert Townsend Farquhar, Suggestions Arising From the Abolition of the African Slave Trade, for Supplying the Demands of the West India Colonies with Agricultural Labourers (London, 1807); Telfair to Commissioners of Eastern Inquiry, 9 May 1827, CO 415/10, Return A296.Google Scholar
- 75.[Capt. Richard Vicars], Representation of the State of Government Slaves and Apprentices in the Mauritius, with Observations; by a Resident who has never possessed either land or slaves in the colony (London, 1830), pp. 9–10; Evidence of Joseph Bailey, CO 167/138; ‘Report of Commissioners of Inquiry’, p. 44.Google Scholar