Tobago planters vs apprenticeship: The 1834 act

Dr Rita Pemberton

DESPITE A very strong attempt by the pro-slaving group to undermine the arguments of the anti-slavery movement, the Emancipation Act was passed in the British Parliament in 1833, to take effect from August 1, 1834.

This law caused great trepidation in the British Caribbean colonies, where planter concerns related to the impact this would have on their plantation operations, with no thought spared for the welfare and needs of the formerly enslaved African community.

Tobago’s administration found it necessary to implement a law to control the wages to be paid to people who wanted jobs as porters or labourers. Based on their argument that this was in the best interest of the island, barely three months into the apprenticeship period, an act to regulate the conduct and to fix the value of the labour of people working as porters or labourers on the island was passed in the assembly on November 14, 1834 and the council on November 24, 1834, to take effect from January 1, 1835.

It is to be noted that the act placed importance on three issues: the anticipated conduct of the freed African population; wages to be paid to specific workers, which was intended to prevent competition for labour; and, though not explicit, the migration of workers in search of more remunerative jobs. These were issues which would feature prominently during the era of freedom.

From the date of the passage of the act no one would be allowed to work as a porter or labourer in Scarborough and Plymouth or any of the outbays on the island without a licence from a sitting magistrate. The towns were targeted because they offered a variety of employment, better wages and access to the best facilities available on the island and would be the first site of refuge for those who sought alternatives to estate labour, which paid the lowest wages.

In addition, the main harbours, the main trading centres, were in the towns. Trade and shipping offered additional employment opportunities, in addition to which, a job on a ship was an opportunity to escape the oppression of estate labour. Kamau Brathwaite’s poem The Sea is History contains frequent references to the many secrets that lie buried under the sea, but the lure of the sea was a part of the liberation strategies of enslaved Africans because it provided an escape from enslavement. Brathwaite’s poem also refers to the many resisting and liberating opportunities it offered enslaved people in the Caribbean.

The outbays of Tobago were important, though often illegal, trading centres providing employment and getaway services for resisting Africans. In the height of enslavement, the administration found it difficult to control these bays, which made the island vulnerable to illegal activity. The matter was considered more urgent during the immediate post-emancipation years. Tobago’s planters were terrified that, given the large number of bays and inlets, this practice would diminish their labour force if not curtailed.

There was also an awareness that workers would seek more remunerative employment, such as was available on passing ships. Planters in Windward Tobago were particularly concerned about the possible erosion of their already limited workforce. Hence, the 1834 law sought to prevent the movement of workers through these gateways. The law established a complicated process in the attempt to restrict the movement of apprentices.

Those seeking jobs in towns or harbours had to produce a certificate of good character from two “reputable” inhabitants of the island to indicate whether they were fit to be licensed. If any such person was an apprenticed labourer, he had to produce a ticket from his present owner/employer giving permission for his apprentice to be employed as porter or labourer.

The challenge here was for the African applicant to find two “reputable” inhabitants to vouch for his character. A reputable person was undoubtedly white, and quite likely a planter, manager, attorney, businessman or member of the administration, all of whom were planter sympathisers.

The complication does not end there for applicants were required to pay four shillings (96 cents) for a licence, which was a tidy sum given that the average daily wage was eightpence (16 cents) per day. Raising that money would present another serious challenge. However, owners were able to send their apprentices for temporary work on any ship which carried material consigned to his estate.

The process was closely monitored, as each magistrate was required to complete these tickets regularly and state the number of such licences he had issued, which had to be recorded in a book provided for that purpose.

The act also provided punishment for those who sought to obtain certificates by other means. A person granted a licence had to wear a badge with his number prominently displayed on his clothing. The punishment for noncompliance was up to 20 shillings, and £5 for every subsequent offence. If unable to pay, he/she would be imprisoned for up to 30 days.

Someone who lent, rented, forged or counterfeited a badge or licence or acted under any forged or counterfeit licence would be charged with a misdemeanour, and, if found guilty by oath or by credible witness, fined between ten shillings and £5. If unable to pay, the offender could be imprisoned with hard labour for up to 30 days. It was legal for all penalties to be levied on the goods and chattels of the offender by a justice of the peace.

The wages for licensed porters and labourers were fixed at one shilling and fourpence per day, and if employed on any ship in the harbour or bays, workers were to be provided with the same rate for lunch and dinner that operated on the boat. If the employment was for less than a day, the licensed porters or labourers were to be paid twopence (four cents) per hour and if employed to carry letters which weighed under 50 pounds, the payment was distance based at fourpence (eight cents) per mile.

The message was clear: no alternative form of labour would be allowed to compete with the wages paid on the plantations. If this did not dissuade workers, the fact that such applicants had no voice regarding the wages paid to them and no mechanism to resolve payment-related issues.

It was an offence for a licensed worker to dispute or refuse the sum offered, for which the punishment was three-ten shillings or up to 15 days' imprisonment. However, if an employer refused to pay porters or labourers the sum stated in the act, it was up to the affected workers to seek to recover such sums under 40 shillings, as permitted by a law passed on January 26, 1835, from any JP.

While this law was stimulated by planter fears for the future of the sugar industry, to which they responded by implementing restrictive measures, the law was unsuccessful in preventing the feared movement away from estate labour. Nor did it quell the rising tide of planter/worker conflict which enveloped the island during the period of apprenticeship.