Half slave, half free

When, willingly or otherwise, the Chinese labourer made his mark on the five-year contract to work on a plantation in the West Indies he became, in effect, “half-slave, half free.” He got a free passage to the West Indies; in return he (or she) had to work for five years on an estate or plantation. Some contracts even promised immigrants a house, garden, free medical attention and “rations.”

It was only when he arrived in the West Indies and was assigned to an estate or plantation that he learned about the pass laws, that he was not allowed to travel more than two miles away from the estate without special permission – a “ticket of leave.” If he left without permission, he was captured and brought back to face fines and/or prison to make sure he didn’t wander away again.

Some contracts allowed an unhappy immigrant to cancel his contract at the end of the first or the second or the third or fourth year – provided he pay back part of the passage money out; others didn’t. Some contracts had no “escape clause” at all, the immigrant was obliged to complete his indenture (one is tempted to write ‘sentence’) whether he liked it or not. Then, too, many found what they’d been promised on leaving China didn’t materialise when they reached their destinations and there was no free return passage home for the Chinese.

Government urged planters to use Chinese as well as East Indian indentured workers to solve their labour problems. At first the planters (one imagines somewhat reluctantly) paid Chinese immigrants’ passages although they found them very expensive. When they pointed out that the passage price of ?30 for a Chinese indentured labourer was twice the passage price of ?15 for an East Indian indentured labourer Government offered to pay planters a bounty of $65 – but only if the Chinese immigrant wanted out of his contract, and only in proportion to the time left to complete the indenture. (I apologise for mixing pounds sterling with West Indian dollars. I’m afraid I don’t have access to exchange rates of sterling for dollars in the mid-19th century – such are the trials of an amateur historian’s life).

Some of the new immigrants were agricultural labourers who came prepared to work on the estates, others were unskilled workers and the unemployed from city slums who knew nothing and cared less about agriculture, and quite a few were opium addicts that, no doubt, the Chinese authorities were glad to see go elsewhere to be someone else’s problem.

What did the planters think of their Chinese workers? Some were loud in their praises for the agricultural workers (men and women both) assigned to their estates. Others, sent the dregs from the slums and/or opium addicts, had not a good word to say for the Chinese.

Good or bad, the Chinese themselves could not have had an easy time adjusting to the new country, working alongside East Indian indentured labour and freed slaves who stayed to work on the plantations. English had to be the language at work, otherwise how would such a mixture of races work together to plant, to tend, to cut cane, to harvest citrus, cocoa, coffee? Whether they liked it or not, the Chinese had to learn the English.

With such a mixed bunch of Chinese immigrants it’s not surprising that, to quote Dr Walter Look Lai, “Many immigrants ran afoul of the law.” In fact in 1866 no less than 905 Chinese immigrant workers were in prison for breaking the law and/or the terms of their contracts.

Some were charged with theft. Most found themselves in jail for breaking the pass laws: here it’s worth remembering that if they didn’t have a special pass Chinese labourers weren’t allowed to go more than two miles from their estate. In theory the indentured worker was free, in practice the strict pass laws made the worker a prisoner on the estate – to all intents and purposes a slave, but a slave who knew that in time there was an end to his bondage. A host of rules and regulations set out the rights and obligations of planters and workers – on pain of fines and jail terms. For the contract immigrant Chinese Dr Walter Look Lai notes these included “absenteeism, desertion, improper performance, habitual idling, various levels of insubordination, neglect of plantation property.”

The standard wage for a Chinese indentured labourer was $4 a month with rations, or $6 a month without. Those whose contracts included “rations” weren’t allowed to buy their own food – they had to accept the rations doled out by the planter – or risk fines or imprisonment. For the ‘crime’ of absenteeism – even when they were sick – a day lost at work was a loss for the planter who must be compensated by paying a fine – or face imprisonment.

In his book The Chinese in Trinidad Trevor Millette noted, “It was not unusual for immigrants to be physically punished for insubordination or for refusing to work.”

For their part, as we have seen already, the planters were supposed to provide adequate housing, rations, wages and medical care. Some did, however, there were no fines, no imprisonment for planters who neglected their responsibilities, not one was punished for failing to provide adequate food, shelter and wages for the immigrant labourer – the sole exception being the planters who were caught out, who flogged, or allowed overseers and drivers to flog the workers.

Some of the indentured were lucky enough to have good masters, overseers and drivers who treated their indentured labourers fairly – others were not so lucky.

Did the agricultural workers who signed up for work in Trinidad know they were to be virtual prisoners on the estate at the mercy of the whims of planters and overseers? Probably not. They thought they’d be getting a fixed wage but once on the estate, when pay-day came at last (it was often late) he found so much was deducted for one or the other minor offence. Dr Look Lai writes that drivers, overseers and managers often abused and intimidated workers “ranging from physical brutality to bribery and extortion for favours rendered.”

Then, when the end of indenture seemed in sight many workers were threatened with imprisonment for petty offences against this host of regulations if they didn’t re-indenture themselves for another five-year term. When cases involving an indentured immigrant and a planter came to court there are no prizes for guessing which side won . . .

Next week Leaving the estates – and after.

annehilton@rave-tt.net