By Rev Nicholas Sykes

In his “Everybody’s Business” piece published in Cayman Net News on 7 August, my fellow columnist Gordon Barlow draws a connection between what he terms the “indenture” system at the ending of slavery throughout the British Empire in 1834 and today’s work permit practices in the Cayman Islands.

It is not the purpose of this article to express either agreement or disagreement with his theory, but rather to share some historical points that I have researched for the last several years and which some may find to be interesting and informative.

In general, writers have drawn a distinction between the system of slavery, which ended in 1834, the system of “apprenticeship” that followed it for a number of years in most territories, but for periods of time that were different in different territories, and the system of “indentured labour” that began in some territories with persons that were newly admitted from Asia.

The persons who endured slavery and then apprenticeship before being accorded what they regarded as “full freedom” were a different population group from those groups that were indentured.

The really significant issue, however, and something that seems not to be altogether recognised, is that the system of “apprenticeship”, occurring in most places after the emancipation law came into effect on the 1 Aug 1834, and lasting in Jamaica, for instance, for four years, was judged to be illegal in the Cayman Islands from its inception, and brought to an end here after less than one year in May 1835.

Even less recognised is the fact that the Maroon communities of Jamaica, in distinction from other slave-owners there, were like the Caymanas slave-owners, not permitted to practise the apprenticeship system, and were directed to make a full release of their slaves at about the same time in 1835.

Perhaps, therefore, it should not be theorised that any modern immigration practice in the Cayman Islands relates to apprenticeship as it really occurred in the Cayman Islands. I do not think that any indentured labour system actually occurred here either, because the industry which this practice served did not exist here. If the theory relates to a “West Indian” reality rather than a “Caymanian” reality, then I suppose the theory might be argued to stand.

The point I really want to share with my readers, however, concerns the basic reason why apprenticeship was judged to be illegal in the Cayman Islands from its inception in August 1834. Briefly, it was because slavery had been practised in the Cayman Islands without what was termed a “registration” of the slaves. The different legislatures of the British West Indian territories after the legal abolition of the slave trade in 1808 had been pressured by the British government to enact registration laws and, in Jamaica, all the slaves, apart from those retained in that capacity by the Maroons, were periodically registered on the
required forms.

This all took place, however, before 1863 (the date of the Westminster Act for Government of the Cayman Islands), and therefore before any laws of Jamaica were ever extended to the Cayman Islands; so no regular registration of the slaves of Caymanas was ever enforced.

However, there was a single “supplementary” registration of the Caymanas slaves done in a hurry before the date of emancipation, under the authority of a special body temporarily constituted under British law called the Commissioners of Compensation.

This special registration was judged sufficient to include the Cayman slave-owners in the monetary compensation extended to the Jamaicans and the other West Indians upon emancipation, but the slave-owners that had not regularly registered their slaves were not allowed to retain any connection with them after emancipation and so, for these, apprenticeship was outlawed.

As a postscript, it can be added that the Maroons did try to register their slaves by directly submitting lists to the Jamaican Legislature, albeit not on the regular forms. However, in the end that does not appear to have helped them either to be allowed to apprentice their slaves or to receive monetary compensation upon the emancipation of their slaves because, under laws passed many years before by that Legislature, their ownership of slaves was supposed to be illegal in the first place.