Taxation triggers 1867 riot at Mason Hall

DR RITA PEMBERTON

After Emancipation there was a rising underbelly of resistance in Tobago against the oppressive policies inflicted on the working class. These policies sought to force them to give their labour to plantation owners under terms that were reminiscent of the era of enslavement.

Each time an event that threatened the already frail life of the sugar industry occurred, the planters increased the workload of their workers, reduced wages, and used their positions in the assembly to impose other restrictive measures on the workers.

One of their favourite control mechanisms was taxation, which, in their minds, would give the workers no choice but to give their labour to the plantations in order to be able to pay the taxes. But the expected outcomes of the tax-to-dependency strategy were never realised, because taxation was the bête noire of the freed Africans.

Contrary to the expectations of the planting community, each imposition of restrictive taxation stimulated a sharp, determined resistance response from the island’s workers. Although it was never clear to the planters and their ruling-class supporters, each such law added fuel to the fire of resistance on the island.

The workers engaged in several forms of non-confrontational resistance strategies which allowed them to continue working within the exploitative system. That way they were able to take advantage of those opportunities that were of benefit to them, while silently undermining it.

But there were instances when intolerance overflow led to violent and confrontational resistance, such as what occurred in1867 with the Dog Tax Act.

This act, approved and implemented by the House of Assembly, imposed a six-shilling ($1.44) licence for all dogs, which was payable by May every year. Payments could be made up to 60 days after the date specified in the act. Anyone who failed to comply would be convicted and mandated to pay 20 shillings ($4.80) in penalties for each unlicensed dog in their possession. In order to ensure compliance with the law, police constables, who were used as informants, were rewarded for their efforts.

This law was a stroke against hunters, who normally kept several dogs, which were essential to their trade. Many workers turned to hunting to supplement their incomes. The thinly veiled intent of this law was to curtail any activity that might contribute to the possibility of independent earnings off the plantations. To make it effective, informants were positioned as stakeholders, incentivised with a portion of the returns.

Fed up with the depressingly low wages and the constant attempts to reduce them further, increased taxation and the growing number of oppressive laws, the incensed residents of Mason Hall were unified in their opposition to the Dog Tax Act and were determined to challenge the law and the lawmakers.

When 100 villagers were convicted under the act, they vehemently refused to pay the tax. On August 8, 1867, they stated their case for amendments to the law in a petition to Lieut Governor Kortright and delivered it to the treasury office.

While Kortright admitted the law was onerous and was under review, he reprimanded what he referred to as their “disgraceful conduct” and cautioned that no action would be taken unless they desisted from such behaviour.

But in a show of official power in September, attempts were made to serve warrants on residents of Mason Hall by the police and tax officers. This was an indication that the workers’ request for clemency had received no sympathy, and in the face of the perseverance of the authorities, the drive to defy was heightened.

The conch shell summoned the100 resisters from their gardens to the obviously prearranged venue to prepare for arrival of the tax officers. On September 16 the resisters armed themselves with every conceivable weapon – sticks, stones, cutlasses and bludgeons – and beat the superintendent of police and the tax officers.

The badly beaten group quickly returned to Scarborough with their mission unaccomplished. In a message of defiance to Kortright, sent via inspector of police Robert Crooks, the villagers insisted that even if he brought in the troops, they would neither pay the tax, nor would they go to jail. They assured the governor that even if he came himself he would be beaten too.

In an effort to appease what was a very volatile situation, eight villagers who were not participants in the protest petitioned for tax relief and issued an apology to Insp Crooks. They explained that the outburst reflected the anger of the protesters, who took umbrage at the actions of a police constable who had contracted the services of an obeahman from Trinidad, both of whom had threatened the villagers.

Much to the embarrassment of the government, the island’s 24-man police force was overwhelmed by the explosion in the village, and troops had to be hastily brought in to maintain order.

The situation was compounded by the fact that the island’s officials did not have a unified position on the law. Despite giving its sanction, the executive considered the law excessive, and in order to defuse the situation, the Dog Tax Act was amended in 1868. The tax was reduced to four shillings (96 cents) per dog per year. The penalties for late payments were not to exceed eight shillings ($1.92), and costs were left to the discretion of the court. Dogs under the age of six months were tax-exempt.

And although it was further reduced to two shillings and sixpence (36 cents) in 1878, the spirit of resistance remained alive in Mason Hall, as the villagers refused to acquiesce to the oppressive law. It was ultimately ignored by both taxpayers and collectors, who were concerned for their safety. The people of Mason Hall had spoken and their message was loud and clear!