For better government of Tobago, act of 1855

Dr Rita Pemberton

CONFLICTS between the executive and the local assemblies featured prominently in the politics of the British Caribbean possessions, because of which the British government sought to reduce and ultimately remove the powers of the assemblies and take full charge of colonial administration. Thus, in order to avoid these conflicts, the new colonies were made Crown Colonies, which did not have assemblies and in which the seat of financial control remained with the imperial government.

During the early conflicts with the old colonial assemblies, whenever the assemblies disagreed with the attempts of the British authorities to implement what were considered undesirable laws or policies, the assemblies used their power of financial control to make their point. They refused to vote supplies, preventing the allocation of money for various purposes. This strategy had a two-fold effect for it created chaos in the administration while embarrassing the imperial authorities, who were rendered unable to pay their officers.

The imperial challenge to colonial authority was based on the notion that the authority of the colonial assemblies was based on the powers given to them by the imperial government. However, this was challenged by the assemblies, which argued that their powers were donated by neither king nor parliament, insisting they were their birth right as Englishmen.

The creation of the colonial assemblies occurred at a time when the imperial government was comfortable in the belief that the administration of the colonies was being placed in the hands of people whose vested interests in exploiting the colonies for their financial benefit were synchronised with those of the imperial authorities. However, conflicts largely emerged from a divergence between the interests of the imperial power and the planter elite on the islands.

The interests of the imperial government shifted from the restricted trading arrangements of the navigation acts, which placed Caribbean sugar-producing colonies at the centre of the imperial trading system, to a desire for wider markets in which the mass-produced goods of the Industrial Revolution could be sold. In addition, while planter interests remained wedded to the welfare of the declining sugar industry, cheaper and better-quality sugar, of which imperial interests wanted to partake, became available on the international market.

Tensions between the British government and the assemblies became heated over the issues that the assemblies considered critical for the survival of the sugar industry. These included the termination of the slave trade, the passage of the Emancipation Act in 1834, and what planters saw as the premature termination of the apprenticeship system and the institution of full freedom, all of which the assemblies were forced to accept.

The frequency with which these conflicts reared their heads made the British government determined to make important changes to the system of government in the Caribbean without further aggravating imperial/colonial relations. This was done surreptitiously by the judicious selection and placement of imperial officials to provide strong sympathetic support for imperial policy and permit imperial intervention at opportune moments. Their strategy, which was first implemented in Jamaica, became the benchmark for the remaining colonies with assemblies, except Barbados.

The Tobago Assembly, which was controlled by the leading attorneys on the island, represented the interests of the large sugar planters whose demonstrated devotion was to the survival and welfare of the sugar industry.

Despite the fact that the sugar industry was on the decline, Tobago planters saw emancipation as a threat to the survival of their plantations and sought to protect their position of power and privilege on the island while seeking to obtain imperial support for the introduction of schemes of immigrant labour as they used their powers to restrict the freedom of the resident African workers. As a result, the imperial authorities disallowed several pieces of legislation which were passed by the Tobago Assembly.

In 1853 the island’s chief justice, Edward Sanderson, described Tobago as in a “disastrous state” which reflected a “lack of administrative initiative” and resulted in the degraded conditions on the island. This and other similarly expressed views of the state of the island provided fodder for the Colonial Office, which noted the intensified resistance efforts on the island and in particular the Land Tax Act of 1852, which led to a riot in Scarborough.

The Tobago Assembly was preoccupied with its battles with the imperial government and failed to raise revenue to fund essential projects on the island. This was well demonstrated by the poor state of Tobago’s roads and lack of basic facilities for the population, which were clear indications that the ruling oligarchy could not be trusted to provide for the welfare of the island’s population. As had been done in Jamaica, the imperial government felt obliged to implement the Executive Committee in Tobago in 1855, whose structure indicated the superior authority over the Colonial Assembly.

The committee was composed of an elected assembly and a nominated council of seven members who were appointed by the governor. Members of the council could hold seats for life but could resign if they so desired. Such appointees would lose their seat if they became bankrupt, were found guilty of a felony or any indictable offence and would be disqualified if they were absent with leave for one year and without leave for three months, and their seats would become vacant.

It was mandatory for members of the council to take the oath of office and they were authorised to appoint the following office staff: usher clerk and printer of council.

In constituting the Executive Committee, the governor was required to appoint two members from the assembly who could hold a seat in both the assembly and committee at the same time and one from the Legislative Council. Both were paid salaries. The committee was the strategy employed to wrest financial power away from the old colonial assemblies and increase the powers of the governor, who was put in charge of the executive government.

The superiority of the committee over the existing administrative bodies was reflected in the provision for all communication with the existing bodies to be made through the committee. To facilitate its operations, the governor was authorised to appoint a secretary to the Executive Committee to whom the clerk of the House was required to deliver all public accounts – books, papers, documents, vouchers, and documents related to accounts – to the secretary of the committee.

The duties of the committee were to assist the governor in preparing annual estimates; levying and disbursing monies; general administration of finances of the island; advise and assist the governor in general administration. Members were required to give their opinion in writing on all matters which were referred to them.

The governor and members appointed to the Executive Committee were made responsible for Public Accounts, the Board of Audit, the Committee of the Board of Works, but it was not permitted to spend more money than was granted by the legislature for said purposes. The Executive Committee was vested with power over all committees in Public Accounts and its powers existed whether or not the assembly was in session and during periods when the assembly was dissolved.

The ultimate power of the Executive Committee in Tobago was its replacement of the loans commissioners with responsibility for handling all loans from the HM government. This was a very important matter for the cash-strapped Colonial Assembly which constantly sought loans from the imperial government for its day-to-day operations, as well as for matters requiring extraordinary expenditure.

The imposition of the Executive Committee was made on the promise of provision of better government for the island, which did not materialise. It became clear that the imperial government was not prepared to invest in a pauperised island and the committee was a glaring strategy to disempower the assembly by stripping it of control over the island’s finances.