Labour and lament in Tobago sugar industry

Dr Rita Pemberton

PART I

FROM THE 1840s to the end of the 19th century, metayage was the dominant system of labour in Tobago. The metayage/metairie system was a system of sharecropping which was based on the principle that planters supplied land and required facilities, while workers, called metayers, provided labour. When the crop was sold, the returns (profit or losses) would be shared on an agreed basis.

This system was introduced and popularised in Tobago during the 1840s and particularly after the disastrous hurricane of 1847, which added to the problems of the island’s sugar industry, which was already faced with serious operational challenges.

The imperial mandate which terminated the apprenticeship system in 1838 was vehemently opposed by Tobago’s plantation owners, who were neither mentally nor financially prepared to implement the changes which were implied in the transition from a work force under planter control to free workers.

As their conduct during the apprenticeship period indicated, planters were determined to maintain their pre-emancipation social and economic practices. These were based on their focus on making the island’s sugar business profitable, which they could only perceive would occur if labour was conscripted.

However, planters faced an uphill battle because, even before emancipation, the island’s sugar industry had begun a steady decline into the doldrums of unprofitability, and in addition the African population was determined to resist planter exploitation and control.

The psychological unpreparedness of Tobago’s planting community for the conduct of plantation operations with free workers presented the first major challenge for it magnified the issue of labour in post-emancipation Tobago.

According to the maxim “land without labour is useless,” the workers in Tobago were unwilling to provide their labour under the terms offered by the planters. Hence worker resistance characterised labour relations in post-emancipation Tobago.

The problem was aggravated by the fact that there existed a serious shortage of cash on the island, so planters were unable to pay wages and there was a variety of specie in use. Both realities served to make the issue of remuneration for work complex and tension-filled, and stimulated a range of other problems.

Wages were paid in kind – rum, molasses, credit from the exploitative plantation shops, but, most importantly, access to land. In addition, planters were unable to make changes in their operations because of a lack of credit since no financier was willing to invest in the sinking fund that was Tobago’s sugar industry.

Hence planters held tightly to traditional ways of operation, including labour arrangements which stimulated their perceived need to hold on to the pre-emancipation system of forced labour. To them the metayage arrangement was the best deal possible at the time and they were determined to make it work

The main challenge to the workers was the fact that after emancipation there were limited opportunities for alternative employment on the island, but they were determined to wring the best deal for themselves within whatever arrangements were offered by the planters, and obtain just reward for their labour.

Once operational in 1842, the use of the metairie system spread across the island. The terms varied; there were written agreements in some cases and oral in others. Changes in plantation ownership affected the extent to which there were variations in the terms, conditions and practices in the system, which stimulated tensions in its operation. Therefore, despite the widespread use of the metayage system across the island, the relationship between planters and metayers was turbulent.

The first public admission of difficulty in the operation of the system was reflected in the decision to conduct an enquiry into the operations of the metairie system of cultivation in Tobago. This occurred in 1884 after the crash of the island’s sugar industry, when it was recognised that labour input was critical to any attempt to resuscitate the industry.

The prevailing situation was considered to be of such importance that the governor-in-chief established a commission to enquire into the whole affair with the aim of placing the system on a satisfactory level of operation. The commission posed questions to estate owners and metayers, who both outlined the problems which they experienced under the system.

The metayers complained that sometimes their canes were not reaped; that the estates took too much sugar and molasses from the final crop; and that they had to pay too much for the manufacture of sugar. In other words, as it operated, the system was unfair to them.

Planters complained about the unsatisfactory cultivation practices of the metayers. This was surprising because the practices then were no different to those which were used to cultivate sugar in the pre-emancipation era. Planters were highly incensed about metayers interplanting provisions in the cane pieces and gave no attention to the canes.

Also, they lamented that the metayers did not respond to orders to cut the canes when they were given. This was a problem which raised its head during the period of apprenticeship, when the apprentices reacted to orders and to the fact that they were issued without recognition that the apprentices were engaged in activities on the plots of land which they cultivated for themselves and the orders to cut clashed with their own interests.

The commission, which reported in October 1885, noted that the metairie system operated with a formal contract on only four estates. This meant that the metayers were prone to varied interpretation of, and arbitrary changes to, the terms of work.

The report of the commission was referred to the Agricultural Society for the formulation of an ordinance, and was forwarded to Mr Choppin, the acting Chief Justice of St Lucia and Tobago, who was tasked with drafting an ordinance.

This ordinance, which was passed in 1888, required the signing of a contract which specified the terms and conditions between the two parties as the established practice.

Metayers were allowed to cultivate one crop of potatoes in every other cane row and could graze stock only with the permission of their masters. But where wilful neglect, non-compliance and unsatisfactory performance was demonstrated by the activities of the metayers, the manager was authorised to re-enter and take possession of the land under cultivation by the metayers.

When a group of metayers operated in a particular locality, they were responsible for road maintenance.

There were also regulations for reaping and manufacturer and for the division of produce after the crop was taken. The formula for the division of molasses stated that the metayer was entitled to one gallon of molasses to every barrel of his share of the crop.

This law satisfied neither the expectations of planters nor metayers and it did nothing to assuage planter/metayer relations on the island. The situation changed when at the union of Trinidad and Tobago in 1889, the Attorney General of Trinidad was required to make period visits to hear cases in Tobago.

As will be shown in Part II, the interventions of Justice John Gorrie in the courts of Tobago caused the jubilation of labour and the lament of planters.