hich said that the planters had to give the apprentices whatever allowances he or she had during slavery could also work in the planters favour because the slave may have gotten next to nothing before, in terms of medical care, provisional grounds, sufficient clothing or adequate lodging. The section of the Act pertaining to the fates of the children of slaves was entirely insufficient and it lay them open to exploitation by their masters. The Act stated that a child under the age of six would be free but in the care of its mother. This would mean that the child would have to remain on the plantation with its apprenticed mother, so in other words the child would still remain under the power of the planter even if it were free. Even worse are the disadvantages placed on the children of destitute mothers who could be apprenticed out at the will of the planter. The planter through the ambiguity of the Act could control the living conditions of his slaves. Therefore the children could be easily proclaimed destitute and be used for the planter’s personal gain. The conditions of work on the plantation, the allotment of punishment and the extent of the jurisdiction of the Stipendiary Magistrates are also among the unmentioned factors of the Emancipation Act. The Act left the overtime wages up to the decision of the planters; it only spoke of the insubordination and disobedience of the apprentice to his master but it did not speak of the cruelty and the unfairness of the planter to the apprentice. Therefore this left the master open to deal out punishments to the ‘freemen’ as he did during slavery because it did not address the rampant issue of workhouses or the use of the whip. The planter could also maintain a power hold over the Stipendiary Magistrates since they were unused to the conditions of colonial life and the functioning of its systems. They also had no large amount of control over the planters’...
