Tobago and the 1850s cholera pandemic

Dr Rita Pemberton

Cholera, the scourge of the 19th century, spread from Asia to Europe, afflicted the UK in 1831 in 1848-49 and again in 1853-54, and entered a Caribbean phase, when it exploded between 1850 and 1867.

The islands of Jamaica and Cuba recorded the largest numbers of fatalities in the region, but the disease spread to the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Martinique, Guadeloupe, the Virgin Islands, Nevis, Grenada, Barbados and Trinidad.

The islands that escaped the calamity were: Haiti, Cayman Islands, St. Martin, St Bethelmy, Montserrat, Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao and Tobago.

Occurring during a period when disease causation was not properly understood and there was an inability to distinguish between this disease and others with similar manifestations, cholera is the story of fear of its deadly danger with its rapid horrifying death. As a disease with no known treatment, it posed a serious threat to society and economy. Under a mandate from the imperial government, the governor in chief in Barbados instructed the island legislatures under his charge to implement appropriate legislation.

In response, on March 15, 1853, the Tobago House of Assembly passed a quarantine law entitled An Act to make Sanitary regulations for the towns of Scarborough and Plymouth and the island generally, which replaced the previous law of 1840 and was proclaimed on August 25, 1853.

The new law sought to prevent the introduction and spread of contagious or infectious diseases in the island. It reflected the response pattern to the disease that was evident in the metropolis, where investigations into its causes revealed the impact of squalor and the lack of sanitation, which stimulated a move to implement sanitary measures.

The administration in Tobago proceeded without any such investigation and launched a sanitation campaign with specific reference to the known problems.

Under the act, the governor was authorised to divide the island into health districts and create a board of health for each town (Scarborough and Plymouth) and its environs and other areas from among resident justices of the peace, medical practitioners and others selected from among the principal members of the community, to manage the cleanup. People who refused to accept nomination to the board were liable to a fine of up to £10.

Meetings of the board were normally to be held once per month, but in the event of the outbreak of any contagious or infectious disease or health emergency, every fortnight, or more frequently as required. Its duties included superintending, directing and ordering the cleaning of streets, lanes, squares, alleys, yards and vacant lots and the immediate removal of offensive matter such as dung, rubbish, weeds and brushwood. The board was empowered to order the washing, cleansing, scouring, whitewashing and fumigating of houses, outhouses and other buildings; cleaning, clearing and purifying drains, gutters, privies, cesspools and ditches in all parts of the country – villages, estates and bays

. The law, which provided additional responsibilities for members of the police force, was to be enforced by the superintendent of police and his men. Members of the board and policemen were given full powers to enter any house, yard or lot suspected to be filthy to inspect and direct necessary sanitising.

Owners of any unoccupied houses or lots were required to keep them clean, as well as the street fronting or adjacent to the property. Failure to do so would attract a penalty of £5 and up to £1 for every day they failed to do so. In the event that the proprietor was ill, disabled, infirm or indigent, cleaning such property would be done at public expense. The penalty for disposal of garbage and/or throwing any nuisance items on the street was £5.

The board was also authorised to prevent anyone from keeping pigs in the towns or close to residences. Permission could be given if, in the view of the board, such activity could be done in a manner it prescribed and which would not compromise the health of the inhabitants. In such cases, pigs should be kept at a distance from the towns and houses to keep the environment clean. The board was empowered to remove any material deemed prejudicial to public health at public expense and direct where the removed material should be relocated.

The act also included arrangements for providing the necessary medicines and treatment by medical officers to the poor and infirm should any infectious or contagious disease be introduced into the island.

Both the threat and actual outbreak of cholera in the region provided the opportunity for a closer look into social realities and the initiation of sanitary reform.

However, in the case of Tobago, although the very threat of the disease exposed deep-rooted social imbalances, this opportunity was not integrated into any long-term planning for institutional change. As one writer asserts, “Colonial cholera…reinforced racism.” The generally accepted notion that was cemented in the imperial and ruling-class mindset was that black people displayed a “want of cleanliness” and their cultural practices led them to engage in excesses which, coupled with their dirty habits and the heat of the tropics, were disease-causing stimulants.

Despite its occasional reference to the plantations, the Tobago Act of 1853 was specifically directed at the premises and activities of the black population.

While the administration frequently expressed gratitude that the island was spared the scourge of cholera, its sanitation regulations provided an opportunity to further restrict independent employment of the freed African population simply by categorising pig- and other animal-rearing as sanitation risks.

In the process, the administration was able to dismiss the gravity of the sanitation problem which resulted from the unplanned post-emancipation settlements of resistance, and avoid providing the necessary infrastructure for effective sanitary improvement in the communities.

There was therefore no marked cleanup campaign in Tobago, although some members of the free black population were harassed by the police. That cholera was not introduced into the island was due to its sequestered state, which was caused by the reduction of trade consequent to the decline of the sugar industry – and not to the biased sanitation regulations of the administration.