On the 6 October 1860, the Governor of the Windward Islands wrote to Henry Breen, the Officer administering the government of St Lucia. In the dispatch from his Barbados office, Governor Hincks expressed his displeasure, in rather blunt language, that Breen would want to question his decision. The matter in question was a rather simple case. It involved an apparent difference in opinion between the two officials as to whether the government auditor was an accomplice in frauds discovered in the local Treasury during that year, 1860. Unfortunately, for Henry Breen, in attempting to strengthen his argument, he quoted some of Hincks' previous conversations, which showed that the Governor had deviated from his original position on the matter. This did not go down well with Breen's superior who wrote back curtly stating, "I think that I am not mistaken in affirming that no such subordinate officer is at liberty to make use of conversations held with his official superior of the nature of those you have adverted in your dispatch." Indeed, the exchange apparently so incensed Governor Hincks that his dispatch went to some lengths in setting the ground rules of total acquiescence to his decrees. His decisions, he stated bluntly, "certainly ought not to be questioned by any subordinate officer acting under my instructions." Rather, Hincks declared, the duty of such an officer was "clearly to give all possible support to my views."1
The incident highlighted much more than the highhanded behavior of a colonial governor and his insensitivity to a subordinate. Undoubtedly, the whole affair was a stinging rebuke to Henry Breen, who, in addition to being the Head of the local government, was a long serving and experienced colonial civil servant with a distinguished record of accomplishment.2 By simply expressing a difference in opinion with his superior, Breen had not only incurred Hinck's displeasure but a strong reprimand as well. More fundamentally, however, this glaring example of the continuation of autocratic rule in St Lucia underscored how little the civil administration had changed despite years of vocal opposition in the colony. Indeed, of the many contentious issues that irked the local population, few appear to have generated as much passion and debate as their dislike for the colony's system of government. Even the existence of various factions in the island could not deter the several united efforts to persuade the Colonial authorities to reform or abandon the system of crown colony administration.
This paper examines the movement for political reform in St Lucia in the early years of emancipation. In a newly freed society where proprietors and their allies could no longer safeguard their dominant economic positions through the traditional master-slave relationship, they sought to enhance their influence by agitating for greater legislative power. An intensified campaign for representative government engulfed the colony in a heightened political activity. By 1848, a mere decade after emancipation, this had led to the birth of the island's first political party - the Social Improvement Association. As a political grouping, however, the Association's narrow political agenda excluded the main grievances of the majority black population just emerging from the yoke of slavery, and thereby failed to anchor itself in the mass support that could have sustained it.
The 'inhabitants', as the more privileged group of planters, merchants and professional men often styled themselves, complained bitterly that the government did not represent them or their interests. As individuals and groups who had greater resources and influence than the black working population, they thrust their dissatisfactions onto centre stage in a newly emancipated society that was still struggling to define itself. Through their petitions and protestations, they assailed the Colonial Office with appeals to loosen its grip on the government and give them a greater opportunity in managing the affairs of the colony.3 Further, as they had done over the years, they vented their frustrations with the intransigence of British authorities and their agents in the colony through the frequent acrimonious debates and disputes in the local legislature. Thomas Bunbury, Lt. Governor of the colony during 1837, may have captured the exasperation among colonial administrators over the interminable political conflicts. Finding himself in an unending feud with the island's Chief Justice, Bunbury, in responding to the several charges that the officer had leveled against him, stated that, "in no island I have visited, is there a more decided warfare carried on in local politics than here."4
Bunbury's observation was apt. The fervor for greater representation among the planter and merchant cliques intensified as they attempted to come to grips with government and society in the aftermath of emancipation. The discord pitted proprietors and their allies, who saw themselves as the prime movers of economic activity in the colony, against government officials who wielded political power and made the important economic decisions - especially in the area of taxation. This did not bode well for a society, already so polarized along lines of race and class. The ensuing debates and agitations gave rise to much acrimony and tension in the colony probably shattering any hope that all parties would arrive at an early consensus or a common vision for peaceful social reform. Perhaps even more ominous for the authorities was the fact that these anti-government agitations came from within the society's upper hierarchy. Government officials routinely touted this class as the model citizenry, whose behaviour served as the example that the less enlightened working population would do well to emulate. With "the respectable class"5 itself sowing the seeds of further social unrest in its disputes with the local government, further social upheavals seemed almost inevitable.
In a society in which the majority of the citizens remained poor and disadvantaged precisely because they were powerless to mend legislation or shape the policies that affected their lives, this debate was also one of central importance to the newly emancipated population. Official policy continued to deny them the basic civil rights and opportunities that came with the birth of a free society, despite the colonial office's assertion that "we did not emancipate our slaves in order that these island factories might continue to flourish but in order to procure a free, moral and contented population."6 Indeed, more than any other group, it was the former slaves and later their descendants, who felt the full brunt of the system of racial and economic discrimination that remained so entrenched in St Lucia and in the other Caribbean post slavery societies in the nineteenth century.
This is not to say that local proprietors and their allies agitated for political reforms in order to address these or the many other grievances that burdened the daily life of the poor. For example, they made little attempt to resolve such pressing problems as their ongoing disputes with the working population over land, labour and wages. Further, one sees little evidence that these "inhabitants" were either willing or able to overcome their traditional antagonisms to the black population, and involve them in attempts to secure a more representative government in the colony. They seemed oblivious to the fact that this policy of exclusion was more likely to strengthen the official British position that its direct rule through crown colony government was necessary to protect the "unrepresented masses." Rather, they seemed mainly concerned with inducing the Colonial Office to transfer greater political power to them. A stronger voice in government would be the most effective way of safeguarding economic positions which proprietors could no longer control through the old master-slave relations.
The disputations between government and opponents had already attracted concern and comment from outside the shores of St Lucia by the 1840s. For example, the Tobago Gazette tried to come to grips with the turmoil in the colony by relating it to the "military temperament" which was used to command7 and complaining that these Governors had "feelings of individual pique, of self conceit and the arrogance of indurated absolutism."8 As a result, it said, it was humiliating so often, to read of a nominally civilian community "dragooned into prostrations of its privileges, general as well as special, by men who, under cover of irresponsible authority give vent to all that is mean, petulant and invidious in disposition." St Lucia was an example of the "lamentable degradation" of such a community, the Gazette report continued. "It appears to us that St Lucia, in name under civil Government, is absolutely practically placed under martial law," it concluded.9 The last observation was probably an exaggeration but it further underscored the sour relations between government and the governed in St Lucia.
Many of the complaints and criticisms related to dissatisfactions with the local Legislative Council, the body that shaped legislation and policy for the colony. The legislature consisted of the five most senior government officials who formed the 'official members' and five citizens "of the most enlightened and influential of the inhabitants" that the Lt. Governor selected to serve as the unofficial members of the Council.10 Historically, this body Two issues created particular annoyance among the residents. One was the inability of the unofficial members, to maintain a semblance of independence. They came under constant scrutiny from their peers in the community who charged that they were "activated solely by their self interest".11 Understandably, these men may have been wary of going against the wishes of the Lt. Governor. They owed their appointments as members of the Council to him and served at his pleasure. Indeed, as far as the short-lived Sentinel was concerned, these individuals were "mere tools" of the Lt. Governor who controlled both executive and legislative authority. Since he was the one to nominate even the non-official members of the Legislative Council, "he is at liberty to elect his own favorites whom he may afterwards, if he likes, use as mere tools."12
The other and perhaps even greater source of frustration was the level of administrative neglect and deficiencies in St Lucia, which seemed glaring even by nineteenth century standards. Arthur Torrens, the military officer who presided over the local government in the mid 1840s, prepared a comprehensive report on the state of the colony before demitting office. It was unusual for the head of a government to criticize his own administration with such frankness his report, dated January 1846 merit special consideration. His views reflected personal experience in the colony's administration as during his tenure, Torrens had shown a genuine interest in improving conditions in the island. The Palladium hailed him as one who had done more to advance St Lucia's interests than all others before him, by his "efficient and enlightened Administration."13 The colonial regulations, he reminded his superiors, required the Officer Administering the Government of a crown colony to initiate all measures proposed for discussion in the Council. "This regulation forces upon him the alternatives of responsibility or inaction - the latter being a cessation of advancement of the community confided to his charge." In the case of St Lucia, he observed, the conditions differed so entirely from that of most of the English colonies that one had to live there to appreciate the "peculiarities and the opportunities or impediments which may exist". Among others, he cited
The extent and nature of the country, the thin and scattered population, the difficult communications, and the few resident and independent proprietors, the adverse religions, the difference of language, race and feeling, and the insufficient remuneration of public officers - these are no ordinary obstacles to the head of a government so inefficiently organized, himself so inadequately invested with authority.14
Yet the colony was "destitute of the ordinary administrative means at the disposal of those better organized communities" he wrote. "Up to a late date," he continued, "few public officers had books or records to show; there is no printed collection of laws and till recently no map of the island or correct survey of her roads and divisions, had been undertaken." His report further lamented that St Lucia had no municipal institutions, no salaried road inspectors and had only an "imperfect administration of the justices of the peace."15
Taken together, the revelations reflect almost total neglect or indifference to matters relating to administration and good governance in the colony. British officials had apparently relegated these to the enterprise of the military officer that frequently served as head of the local government. "The Officer Administering the Government is the sole local referee in every matter connected with the minutest administrative detail," Torrens disclosed in obvious frustration. At the same time, he complained, the officer "must proceed actively in matters whether legislative or administrative, wherein Lieutenant Governors of other colonies have but to watch and be judge of the debates or acts of others." Torrens concluded, with an aphorism more reminiscent of a feudal lord, that:
Here, the Lieutenant Governor is the Government.16
The dismal state of the colony's government implicated British policy makers who were the ones responsible for the colony's welfare. Even more significantly, it called into question their much-vaunted claim that crown colony government served to represent and protect the interest of the poorer classes. In a society in which local officials had paid little heed to the needs of the black and poorer citizens, the Colonial Office needed to put into practice a policy of more active intervention that would show some semblance of concern for the plight of those it professed to protect. It needed to create institutions and safeguards that served the interests of all classes in general and provided better conditions of life for the poor, in particular. This did not happen. What prevailed was a level of neglect and indifference that frustrated all inhabitants and retarded the development of the new society.
The report received strong local support "for accurately depicting the circumstances of the colony"17 and gave the reform advocates an even stronger basis for asserting the need for a representative form of government. Such a development, they said, would ameliorate the colony's deplorable situation, usher much needed changes to the judicial process and in general, create a salutary effect on the entire society. "We should soon see the purification of our courts of law, and of the law itself ... as well as the many concomitant evils by which the community is now depressed, and St Lucia become [sic] a flourishing and happy colony," trumpeted the optimistic expectations.18 Further, it would also spawn a new civil society that was free of all the evils of the existing system and turn St Lucia into a flourishing and happy colony. In the political imagination of these campaigners, representative government seemed to be the Holy Grail that would bring redemption from all the colony's social and economic woes.
The sobering reality, however, was that for men who wielded so much power over the lives of the working population, their own political impotence in changing their status may have been the bitterest pill to swallow. The colonial government greatly circumscribed the manner in which citizens could express dissent or demonstrate their dissatisfactions with official policies. The authorities claimed that such actions could set 'bad examples' to the lower orders who would quickly emulate their "betters". In this regard, they seemed particularly suspicious and distrustful of the coloured population, as a group of the colony's most prominent coloured gentlemen found out in October 1844 when they intervened in a disturbance.
They had attempted to avert a looming civil unrest by petitioning the Lt. Governor, Colonel Arthur Torrens, to rescind the punishment of flogging that the Court had imposed on a young coloured boy.19 In very courteous language, they pointed to the undue severity of the punishment, taking the boy's age and weak physical condition into account. Further, they said, flogging was too great a degradation for the offence. Torrens refused to do so, until mounting public protests, mainly from the coloured population, that led to rioting in the town of Castries forced him to suspend the sentence. With a face-saving excuse that "the disgrace lies in the offence, not in the punishment,"20 he directed his ire at those who had initiated the petition.21 It was their "incautious words," he said, "or some powerful expression of their opinion" used in the hearing of the less instructed part of the coloured population, that tended to "excite or aggravate their disorder on the occasion." Further, he hoped his audience had seen for themselves "with what ease these feelings are excited" and "the difficulty which is found to allay them when once roused."22
His specious claim implying a flawed character among the less privileged groups is easily a reflection of the bigotry of the post slave society. However, the suggestion that their "incautious words" could lead to social unrest placed a heavy burden of responsibility on these leaders. A commentary on the incident in the Independent Press, a newspaper that generally reflected the government's views, was more forthright and to the point. While observing that the black population had not yet taken a part or made any demonstration in that confrontation, the Press issued a warning. "Our mulatto fellow colonists must know on which side their bias bears," it stated. "It will be well, indeed, for them," the editor advised menacingly, "if they do not find to their bitter cost, that in their wanton folly they have sown the seeds that will bring forth their own degradation and ruin."23 Put bluntly, they must show unquestioned loyalty to the governing class or suffer the consequences and probably the fate of the black population.
The implication of that doctrine was far reaching. By discouraging the society's small literate group either from expressing views that were critical of the political order, or from associating with the dispossessed working majority on issues of common social grievances, the colonial government was effectively paralyzing the few avenues for meaningful opposition within the society. Even for those who might risk the accusations of inciting unrest and mischief, they faced the futility of expressing political grievances through the officially sanctioned channels. This prompted the Palladium editor in 1847 to ask rhetorically, "What steps should they [the citizens] adopt to improve their condition?"24 With scarcely disguised skepticism, he related how "the glorious and time-honored Constitution of England" gave them all the right of "petitioning the Throne, humbly and respectfully setting forth the grounds of complaint, and earnestly praying for their removal."25
The skepticism was justified, judging from the several previous attempts.
In 1836, the St Lucians had sent a petition to the colonial authorities in England in which they complained of excessive taxation and sought financial assistance from the British Treasury. They also pointed to their exclusion in all matters related to their taxation and other areas of governance and asked for an Elective Council in the colony.26 A long-winded response denied the request claiming that such change could not come "until all classes in the community are placed on a footing of equal rights" and St Lucia showed no indication of being ready in the near future for this development.27 Local pride received another battering the following year. In 1837, the Colonial Office further eroded what little authority the colony could exercise by placing its administration under the superintendence of the Governor of the Windward Islands at an additional yearly salary of 500 pounds to be borne by the St Lucia Treasury.28 Downgrading the status of the head of the local government29 was most likely a reprimand to the Legislative Council that had earlier refused to approve a Supplementary Ordinance for raising an additional tax for the year 1836. The measure imposed a poll tax of twenty livres (about eight shillings and six pence sterling) per head "upon all adult inhabitants of the colony between the ages of sixteen and sixty years" to be paid in the colonial Treasury on or before the first day of July 1836. The poll tax would continue annually until the existing colonial debt was fully paid. The particularly irksome provision required that in all cases, "when the poll tax is due from any apprenticed labourer, the amount of his or her poll tax shall be paid by his or her employer."30
Under pressure from local planters, the unpopular measure failed but the administrative changes further aggravated internal disenchantment with the political system. In an impoverished society where the inhabitants complained of over taxation, the additional sum required to pay salary to a non-resident Governor that the British had imposed on the colony, was easily a source of further resentment. The residents complained in 1843 that while the Governor General had drawn money from the Colonial chest for the last six or seven years, he had paid only one visit to the island, and that was to effect the Emancipation Act of 1838.31 It did not help that administrative procedures that were already slow at their best, sometimes became even more unresponsive. All resolutions of the Legislative Council and other official correspondence to the Colonial Office first went to the Barbados based Governor of the Windward Islands for his review and comments before onward transmission for final decisions in London.32 Local officials had to wait helplessly until the dictates from London filtered back to them through the same layer of this bureaucracy.
The system severely impeded the ability of the local government to function, as was so evident by an administrative crisis in 1843. The Legislative Council passed a Tax Ordinance in July 1842 to provide budgetary provisions for the year 1843. The local officials acted so early in order to allow the Colonial Office authorities ample time to consider the legislation. In keeping with procedures, the correspondence went immediately to Barbados for forwarding to London. Yet, by February 1843, some seven months later, local authorities had still not received any reply and the Treasury was by then said to be empty. A new Lt. Governor arrived to take up duties in the same month. Finding an empty treasury, he attempted to keep the government functioning by issuing an Ordinance "Re-enacting the old Tariff until Her Majesty's pleasure respecting the new should be known." He made this emergency arrangement on 9 February 1843 but the measure had to obtain the sanction of the Governor of Barbados before implementation. It did not receive the approval from Barbados until 6 March and promulgation of the ordinance finally came on 9 March 1843. To keep the administration from collapsing in the meantime, the Lt. Governor, Colonel Clarke, enabled the government to raise $960 to meet some of the colony's obligations by issuing his own promissory note, endorsed by the Colonial secretary.33
It was in an effort to ventilate these and their many other long-standing dissatisfactions with the system of government that a number of concerned citizens convened a public meeting in February 1847. A Public Notice dated 10 February 1847 in two consecutive issues of the Palladium, invited the public of St Lucia to attend. The ten 'inhabitants' who lead the initiative34 explained, in an exchange of letters with their designated chairman, Charles De Brettes, that they felt it necessary to convoke an assembly of their fellow-colonists in order to address a memorial to the Secretary of State, on the condition of the colony and the urgency for creating a Representative form of Government.35 In their letter of 11 January 1847, the convenors also disclosed that they had invited De Brettes to call this meeting on any day agreeable to him36 and chair the proceedings as because they and their fellow citizens reposed confidence in him for his independent position, his intelligence, and his known political opinions.
De Brettes political influence in the community may have played an even more important consideration in his selection. A proprietor of French extraction, he was a familiar name to citizens in all parts of the island as we notice from his national attention in 1845. His prominent role in sponsoring celebrations to observe the Feast of St Peter, the Patron Saint of fishermen, and one of the island's important annual cultural events was evident. On the occasion, there was much gaiety at Gros Islet on 28 and 29 June as the festival attracted parties from Castries and from other parts of the island who attended in large numbers. Few would have forgotten that the whole village was lighted up with merry-making, boating, feasting, drinking, and dancing while there was a tent on the beach "overspreading an extensive board on which lay the best viands and every dainty the island affords, for the regalement of friends and strangers."37 The benefactor was Charles De Brettes, proprietor of Cape Estate [the modern day spelling is Cap]. He not only bore the expense but afterwards also entertained the large company "at his beautiful mansion, where dancing was kept up for many hours."38
De Brettes had therefore earned the community's goodwill. He professed, in his reply on 30 January, to be "unqualified" for conducting public business, but expressed thanks for the confidence placed in him and accepted the task with little hesitation. He scheduled the meeting for Saturday 20 February 1847 and pledged to use his "best exertions" in concert with his fellow citizens to obtain "that great desideratum of British subjects, a Representative Government, the want of which is so much felt in this community."39 He remained true to his word. These sentiments would reverberate in the hall of the Court House when disgruntled citizens gathered there to vent their accumulated frustrations against the government and conditions in the colony. The attendance was not as large as expected considering the importance of the event - but this "failing" that generally attended all great undertakings in St Lucia.40 Others may also have stayed away more out of fear that their actions might offend the government or its agents. For example, not a single public employee was present at the St Lucia public meeting "owing to a false impression in official circles that it would be improper for salaried public functionaries to attend such a meeting." Yet, at a similar meeting in Trinidad the previous year, the writer observed, members of council, law and other officers of the crown "attended freely and of course with perfect safety."41
The absence of public officers and others did not deter matters. The gathering heard the Chairman's assurance that "the meeting was not in any spirit of party and called for friendly cooperation of the entire community in adopting the proper steps." Indeed, the great willingness to collaborate on this issue was apparently something novel in the community. The editor of the Palladium, who had previously criticized the internal squabbles among his compatriots, congratulated them for this demonstration, and admitted that this may have been a first for the colony. "Perhaps for the first time in the whole political history of St Lucia," he wrote, "in emphatic contradiction to the long received impression that such a thing as unanimity of sentiment was quite impossible to its party-ridden inhabitants, it shows that the last spark of patriotism is not extinguished in their breasts." There was yet that esprit de corps amongst them, "so essentially necessary to the initiation and practical success of institutional reform,"42 he wrote effusively.
The optimism may have come from the stature of those present at the gathering. They represented the wealthiest and most influential members of the community - "the landed proprietors, ship - owners, merchants and professional gentlemen" - from all quarters of the island.43 Not all were on a scale like the Chairman Charles De Brettes, who owned extensive properties in Gros Islet in the northern part of the island but most of them, as merchants and planters, wielded much power over the working people, as employers of labour. Some of the more prominent persons among the coloured population, L. Glaudon, J.M.A. Aubert and A. Cools, also attended. There was also Henry Percin, another advocate and man of colour. Percin could not know at the time that a mere two years hence, he would return in that same Court House building to provide legal defense to those who had dared to resist the heavy tax demands of a government that neither understood their needs nor represented their interests.
The meeting started soon after 12 o'clock that Saturday when "the number of persons in attendance being found ample,"44 with De Brettes in the Chair and Muter Miller acting as Secretary for the occasion. Rarely does one encounter a group of citizens in an ostensibly free society revile the system of government under which they lived in such manner. The rhetoric was caustic as the meeting denounced the political system foisted upon the colony as one that served to both humiliate them and retard their progress. They had all felt "the degradation and hardship of the existing system which it had been their unhappy lot to bear for a number of years," De Brettes complained in an opening salvo.45 Under crown colony government, he charged, "not one but must have blushed at the miserable substitutes for free institutions by which the people of this colony were now held down."46 They were all interested in the welfare of the island that was the native land to so many of them and the adopted country of the rest, he reminded his audience. He was confident that they would be unanimous in pursuing the measures to secure the prosperity of the country and the happiness of its inhabitants, by the introduction of "free and liberal institutions."47
The discussions eventually turned to the main business of the meeting - that of a memorial to the Colonial Office. Presenting a petition or memorial was a common practice in the nineteenth century. Aggrieved citizens brought their complaints to, or sought relief from, the government or its agents through this method. The complainants therefore placed great importance on getting this correspondence right if they hoped to convince their absentee political overlords in London to bestow a greater role in local affairs. Of four resolutions the meeting adopted, two dealt with the details of preparing the petition. Gabriel Leuger, planter of Anse La Raye and Castries merchant Robert Muter, moved and seconded a resolution for electing a Standing Committee "to prepare all necessary memorials, and carry on all such correspondence, as may be required to convey ... the prayers of the people."48 In another, George Cotter, planter from the Micoud/Dennery District, and Jean Paul Leuger nominated the committee members to undertake the labour of preparing the necessary documents.49
Factional squabbling threatened the show of solidarity that everyone was so keen on promoting when Charles Wells declared Robinson's inclusion on the committee was "highly objectionable" because he had long been identified with 'party' in the island. The ensuing debate exposed the divisions and rivalries within this group of 'inhabitants' that remained as wide as ever.50 All were keenly aware, however, that a show of unity was necessary in petitioning the Colonial Office. They gave unanimous approval to a resolution urging their "Gracious Sovereign" that it was time to grant to the inhabitants of St Lucia, "the reward of their past faithful and zealous obedience to the laws and submission to the constitution which has governed the Colony since it became a portion of the British Dominions."51
As these men tempered long-standing rivalries to seek greater political status with pleadings and praises to their distant sovereign, they may well have reflected on the paradox of their situation. They were the leading citizens who controlled the main areas of economic activity in the island. Their colour was a sufficient guarantee to accord them the highest social status in the colony and the privileges that came with their positions. Yet these advantages could not confer their most cherished goal of political power - a voice in the governance of the colony that they called home. It is true that their position bore no comparison to the lot of the black majority of working men and women. Trapped into the backbreaking work cycle and low wages in the cane fields, wearied from their never-ending toils on provision grounds to eke out a meager subsistence, they confronted the hostility of landowners, battled racism and discrimination, and suffered the many hardships of life that the rural poor endured in all areas of civil society.
The protesting planters and their peers, however, had hardly concerned themselves with these travails of the poorer classes. Indeed, they stubbornly refused to relate their political pursuits to the general good and progress of the other social groups in the society. They articulated no vision for the improvement of life in the colony, nor did they express a desire to overturn any of the many practices that worked to the disadvantage of the poorer classes. During the entire meeting, one finds no reference to the plight of working people who in many cases were the employees of these proprietors, and who knew too well of the economic hardships and the other deprivations in the Island. What these men sought, with single-minded determination, was a system that gave them a stronger and more effective voice in the local legislature whereby they could safeguard their interests, particularly in preventing the Executive from imposing additional taxation on them.52
Ironically, however, the apparent indifference that the local elites displayed towards those in the lower ranks of the society helped to strengthen the grip of crown colony government. British authorities probably still had their lingering suspicions about a class that had so strongly opposed the creation of a free society in St Lucia. "When we reflect upon the great sacrifice such a step would entail upon this Colony," the Palladium had wailed during the last few weeks preceding emancipation, "we cannot but question the practicability of the measure."53 Mirroring local attitudes, the paper flayed the inevitable change with ominous warnings that a freed black population posed serious threats to society in St Lucia. "Let not the whole posse of ignorant creatures composing the apprentice class of this colony be turned loose upon the land, without any restrictions from the lawless bent of their far from civilized minds - without some strong check against their vagabond propensities, or some fixed ratio for the compensation of their labours," it screamed.54 The defenders of the status quo were so resolute that it required the Governor General to travel from his Barbados office to preside over the meeting of the legislature, and the presence of a warship in the harbor, to get passage of the Emancipation Act.55 Nearly a decade later, it was difficult to see what steps the people who held power in the society had taken in an attempt to repudiate their brazen bigotry and encourage greater efforts towards creation of a multiracial society.
Instead, through their policy of exclusion, the local elite had effectively ceded any moral claim to represent the interests of the majority. This enabled British officials to claim, with some justification that since the masses remained without representation in the local assembly, that body should not receive greater powers until it truly represented all interests. The Colonial Office, through its Secretary of State Charles Grey, restated this position in his reply to the memorial from "certain inhabitants of St Lucia" praying for Representative Government. Grey informed them that this could not be, until the lower orders of the people were "sufficiently instructed with the franchise."56 With this explanation, the petition's failure seemed to lay not with the actions of the local elite, but with the "lower orders" that were yet too unprepared and too unsophisticated to participate in representative government.
In the sometimes inscrutable political logic of nineteenth century colonialism, one may well wonder whether Charles Grey's response sought to soothe the obvious rebuff to the local clique by indicting the black population for the autocratic rule that his own government had imposed on the colony. For it remains open to debate whether the British Government was indeed keen on protecting the rights of the 'lower orders' or whether it was determined to curtail the powers of the local proprietors and their supporters. Perhaps it was both. What was emerging quite clearly, however, was that British policy makers had thrust the black population inextricably into the political dialogue, since they defended crown colony government as a way to safeguard black interests in the island. When the issue of representation came up again the following year, the Colonial Office elaborated the principle in some detail. It was at the time considering dispatches from St Lucia that sought changes that would enlarge the composition of the Legislative Council.
I fear that it must be a long time before the Negro population can form constituencies sufficiently intelligent to secure themselves a true representation in a Legislative Body, and until a large portion of the population of the Island shall be in a condition to do so, I am of opinion that the interests of the Inhabitants at large will be better taken care of by a Body responsible to a responsible Government than by any body which should be responsible only to a small number of Colonists of their own class.57
Charles Grey's homily exposed the racist basis of 'trusteeship' and crown colony government. What he presented was a bleak prospect for political and social reform in the colony.
It was not that the poorer classes relied on the compassion of British and local officials as the way to improve their life conditions. Their many efforts to ameliorate the hardships of daily life must have left a deep consciousness that few, if any, of life's little gains ever came from the benevolence of those who held power over them. Rather, it was mainly on the occasions when the poor, impelled by their frustrations, resorted to the force of their superior numbers, could they hope to educe any response from the authorities. This was evident in the various riots and other skirmishes that marked the period following emancipation.58 Such persons would readily recognize, in a way that the more privileged 'inhabitants' would not understand, that reforming the island's system of government would not come easily. An entrenched political system that embodied the principles of British colonial policy over two centuries, would hardly give way to petitions and resolutions accompanied by the ostentatious affirmations of a clique that dubbed itself as "Her Majesty's loyal subjects".
In the wake of their last rebuff from the Colonial Office, the planters, merchants and professional men who had acted as an ad hoc pressure group, formed themselves into a new 'society' that they called the Social Improvement Association. This development was as important as it was unprecedented in the history of the colony. It marked the emergence of the island's first political party. We attempt to trace its short history to gain a better understanding of this first attempt at organized political opposition in St Lucia.59
A group of fifteen men meeting in Castries on 19 June 184760 saw "with deep sorrow the degrading situation of the colony and the deranged state of its affairs, under the present unconstitutional form of government." They recounted their previous attempts and failures. They considered further that the local Government, "though raising yearly, enormous imposts out of all proportions with the small number of the taxpayers, has never benefited the colony, nor done anything towards its social and material improvement." It was necessary and urgent, they concluded, to form an association "for promoting the general welfare of this neglected community, and for resisting the principle of taxation without representation." These formed parts of the ten resolutions that the group "unanimously" adopted as it gave birth to the Social Improvement Association.61 The members agreed that they would meet henceforth in Castries.
Perhaps out of caution, the organizers quickly disavowed any political intentions and described the two "objects" of the Society. Firstly, it would be "a Debating Society, to discuss any subjects excepting those of a theological nature." Secondly, it would serve as "a Reading Society, to supply the principal daily and weekly newspapers and the periodical publications of general interest."62 The ambitions of the group, however, went further. The society would discuss all matters connected with taxes raised without representation," following on the principle that "there can be no proper taxation without representation."63 In addition, it would patronize every improvement in commerce, agriculture, manufacture, sciences and arts. It would look for means to replace manual labour by mechanical power as the best way to address "the scanty labouring population" of the colony. It also promised to address the social issues affecting the wider population. On top of all this, the society laid out its grand design.
to encourage the morals and education, and knowledge among the people; to rouse and stimulate the energy and industry of inhabitants; to give an impulse to public spirit and to check to party spirit; to help by professional assistance those who, being illiterate or in humble circumstances, are deprived of legal advice and of free and ready recourse to the courts of justice.64
If anyone believed the society's contentions that its main interests related to debating and reading, the government did not. "The Society is in fact a Political Society, holding its deliberations with closed doors, and is the same which petitioned, some time ago, to have representative Government established in St Lucia," Governor Reid later wrote to the Colonial Office.65 This set the stage for an almost inevitable conflict between the Social Improvement Association and the local government. The administration would hardly take well to a political grouping in its midst, which seemed to challenge its very legitimacy by describing it as an "unconstitutional form of Government." Moreover, the tenor of some of its resolutions and statements gave credence to this official stance.66
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Social Improvement Association appears to have suffered an early demise.67 The society lasted long enough, however, to rattle the government persistently for inflicting economic hardships and social problems on the island's citizens. It was also a signal that a new era of political agitation had arrived in the colony.
The high-minded declarations from the society,68 may well have come out of genuine intentions of some of the members. For example, Henry Percin, one of the fifteen persons who affixed their names to the resolutions, was a coloured lawyer who was already well known for providing legal assistance to the less fortunate.69 When it came to the question of membership, however, the society seemed much less accommodating as its high price of membership effectively restricted it to the small group that formed the economic elite of the colony. The audacious sum of £10 for admission and a further £5 yearly was not only beyond the reach of most in the impoverished colony but too high even for those who had imposed it."70
It is difficult to know whether the level of fees required for membership in the Social Improvement Association represented a deliberate strategy to exclude people of the 'lower orders.' The society claimed that after deducting all the necessary expenses, the subscriptions would be used "in purchasing a library composed of books of a high character in science, arts, literature," and in pursuit of its other activities."71 Yet whether intentional or not, the criteria for membership conveyed an unmistakable message. The society, for all its pronouncements on social justice, easily conformed to the existing system of rigid class and social separation. Black working men and women would have no place in this organization.
Following organizing details, the Society quickly thrust itself into public notice with an "Address from Members of the Association to the Inhabitants of Saint Lucia."72 The 'address' to fellow-subjects in the colony restated a number of the familiar complaints. The citizens enjoyed none of the rights and privileges as British subjects, suffered from a heavy taxation without any representation while the Public Treasury "so extorted" from them was squandered without benefiting the taxpayers who had no protection against "fraud or malversation." Indeed, if one goes believes this address, the society was literally falling apart.
Our Estates are going to waste, and are advancing rapidly, under the present system to irretrievable ruin. Our children grow up without education. Our commerce is falling and our colonial shipping has become profitless: equally by the injudicious interference as by the neglect of the Executive. Our Agriculture, the sole resource of the Colony, out of which alone, under existing circumstances wealth can be created, instead of being fostered and supported, is depressed and burdened.73
There seemed also to be no shortage of examples to present evidence of the misdeeds of the government. One was that the large expenditure on Public Buildings "for the use and ornament" of the colony served mainly to provide a "Palace" for the residence for the Military Officer Administering the Government. The only other public buildings were a Goal and a Poor House in Castries and one looked in vain for "Sanatory [sic] regulations or for anything tending to the comfort of the inhabitants or public embellishments."74 Other examples included the compulsory labor on the public roads by all adults between ages 16 and 60 years or payment of an annual tax of eighteen shillings in lieu, the taxes on saddle horses, on mules and on boats.
There was another particularly vexing matter. A government measure to collect the duties on spirits (rum) on the estates, did not go well with those concerned. The planters howled at the idea, complaining that this would be "executed by men so totally incapable of understanding their duty," that it would be impossible for the most intelligent and conscientious planter to avoid "vexatious and arbitrary interference with his daily operations."75 Despite their objections, however, there was more than a hint that some of them were objecting because they were involved the lucrative contraband trading. The Social Improvement Association inferred as much stating that "although the number is so small, that it does not attach shame to the Colony we inhabit." It blamed the colony's poor governance that brought on such problems.76
The habit of detailing the colony's problems in the hope of persuading the British authorities to act was standard practice. From their previous experience, however, the members of the newly formed society would know that this was largely a futile endeavour. Their own petitions to the Colonial Office had come to naught. Their lamentations in this case, therefore, seemed directed more towards winning the hearts and minds of the general population. By rekindling festering grouses and grievances that affected everyone from impoverished planter to struggling peasants, the society appealed to as wide a cross section of the colony's population as possible. It seemed eager to transform itself from an organization with a small vocal group of discontented 'citizens', to one that attracted wide national support. In stirring language that was reminiscent of a political rally, the Social Improvement Association called on the citizens to "through [sic] aside all apathy and despondency, which is unworthy of Freemen" and urged them to ready themselves for the "exertions" ahead.
Prepare yourselves for the exertions we will be called upon to make under the more favourable auspices, into which we are about to emerge in the Light of Free Institutions. Look forward with hope. We have organized this Association for our Social Improvement, and we invite, we entreat, the co-operation of all our fellow - colonists. Come and take an active part in the good work. Our Association is not exclusively political: we seek not to embarras [sic] the Executive in the performance of their legitimate functions. We will unceasingly seek by all legal and constitutional means to obtain our right to Representation, as co-existant with the right of taxation.77
How did this clarion call for action and reform resonate in the small colony? Was the society able to enlist the support it required to qualify as an effective political organization? We have no way of gauging public opinion on these matters but we can glean some insights from the comments in the local press. In its issue of 23 October 1847, the Palladium published the 'Address' which it dubbed the Society's Manifesto. The editor explained that publishing the 'manifesto' was a kind of civic duty to give the society the publicity which otherwise would incur it "a heavy outlay of money without the aid of this journal." Further, this would acquaint fellow colonists with the principles that the body espoused and provide an opportunity for readers to exercise their own judgement "as to the general character and promise of the institution."78 In the meantime, the writer expressed his own doubts. He wanted to be convinced that the Association had placed itself on a proper track by recruiting men who saw about the common good "in preference to the paltry views of disappointed factionists and restless agitators."79
The mistrust that he evinced towards some of the Society's members, particularly towards his archrival Dr Robinson, makes it difficult to know whether his remarks provide fair comment.80 The barrage from the Palladium's editor undoubtedly sought to undermine the public's confidence in the new body referring to "a party of men numbering on its scarce list of members public officers who have been dismissed and at least one man whose sworn affidavit a Court of Learned Judges has had cause publicly to throw aside as waste paper."81 What one can glean from this tirade is that the Social Improvement Association had not brought an end to, or even abated, the internal skirmishes among social groups in the colony. The Association had proclaimed among its aims "to give an impulse to public spirit; and a check to party spirit,"82 but it was evident that the partisan distrust that existed in the colony over the years would not suddenly vanish.
The advertised first public meeting scheduled for "18th May 1848 at half past 10 o'clock a.m." throws some greater light on the society. The meeting was to debate the weighty concern of the day "Does the Legislative Council as at present composed, merit the confidence of the people, as affording them any protection for their liberties and properties".83 The public would be admitted "in accordance with the 36th Section of the Society's Laws."84 The notice aroused some curiosity within the colony as "for the first time since the formation of the Club, its proceedings [would] be accessible to the public."85 Most of the Association's members - seventeen out of the twenty - attended the Thursday morning meeting but there was only a "scanty attendance" from the public.86
Their 'manifesto' had invited and entreated the co-operation of all fellow-colonists, but the Association members seemed almost indifferent to the public's opinion. Indeed, it seems astonishing that 'aspiring representatives', campaigning on the need for citizens to have a greater voice in the governance of the colony, would themselves flaunt such a highhanded attitude at the first hint of criticism of their procedures. When member Cotter tried to explain that the wording of the meeting's advertisement had caused the poor public attendance, the Society showed little interest in whether the public came or stayed away.87 Member Henry Percin did not think the Society should take notice of the "idle construction" people might choose to put on their advertisement while colleague James Macfarlane, the Society's secretary, dismissed the matter quite brusquely. If they did not understand English, he retorted haughtily, let them keep away.88
If their behaviour becomes difficult to fathom, it is because the individuals who comprised the Social Improvement Association straddled two different worlds. In one, they were the assertive proprietors exercising authority and power in everyday life over their less privileged compatriots. Nurtured and steeped in a tradition of dominating others through slavery, racism and economic privilege, these were men firmly wedged into the power structure of the colony. They were a confident, powerful and assertive group of planters, merchants and professional men who represented considerable economic might and influence. Their plantations generated the colony's main export crop and served as a major avenue of employment for the black working population. As 'loyal British subjects' inextricably woven into the economic and social fabric of the small colony, their social status (excluding the few colored men in their midst) was on a par with the small white governing group. And, like the latter, they accepted without question that the place for black working people was at the bottom of the social and economic ladder.
In their other world, they became the agitators and aggrieved protesters that were vehemently complaining about their exclusion from the local political class. This was an important class, as it was the only group with direct access to British officialdom from whence came all the important economic and other policy decisions relating to the colony. In this role, the members of the Social Improvement Association positioned themselves as the political reformers. Clamouring for greater representation in the colony's government, they challenged the very legitimacy of their own legislature and beseeched their colonial overlords to reform it because "the institution was rotten to the core and stank to the nostrils."89
With their incursion into anti-establishment agitation, the Social Improvement Association would inevitably fuel further conflict with political authorities in the colony. Their political demands, if successful, would constrain the power of local officials in taxing their estates or their industry. William Muter90 and some of the Merchants of the town of Castries91 had discovered a decade earlier, however, that this was no easy task when they tried to hold a public discussion of a controversial Tax Ordinance.92 Then Lt. Governor Mein refused, claiming it would be unconstitutional and irregular on behalf of the executive, to grant permission to hold a public meeting "for the avowed object of discussing measures submitted by the Executive to the Legislative Council."93 It was perhaps a reflection of the pervasive power of crown colony government that the colony's most prominent citizens could not even hold a meeting to air their complaints on their taxes and levies.94 Shrugging off any disappointment with the government's decision, the meeting was "unanimous of opinion," that the ancient custom of the colony in this particular should be adhered to, and every courtesy and deference observed towards the Lieutenant-Governor, however harshly, erroneously or unconstitutionally His Excellency might be advised to act towards the meeting."95
Charles de Brettes captured the connection as he addressed his Society's first public meeting and hinted that there could be no repeat of the unpleasant experience of 1838. The government did not recognize their Association, he told the group, and they knew very well that since theirs was not a corporation, the body could not interfere with legislation of the country. However, de Brettes maintained assertively, his society had the right to meet to discuss its own business and was prepared "to meet the difficulties with perseverance and fairness."96 What form such 'perseverance and fairness' would take remained vague, and perhaps deliberately so. Previously, aggrieved citizens seemed content to write petitions. Now, a more fundamental and radical proposition took root. Since the members of the Legislative Council served as "the tools by which the ruin of the colony had been consummated,"97 they had neither the moral nor the legal authority to govern the citizens of the colony. Taken to its logical conclusion, the argument provided an effective justification for civil disobedience and even a political uprising.
It was Henry Percin, a lawyer and a man of colour, who assailed the legislature in this novel manner. Taking on the daunting task of challenging the legality of the colonial regime, was no easy task and Percin showed undoubted ability and courage. Born in St Lucia on 27 February 1817 from affluent parents who spared no expenses on him, Percin had gone to Europe at an early age to acquire his education. He completed his degree as Doctor of Laws (LL.D) in Paris and returned to St Lucia in 1839 to begin his law practice.98 "He was most eloquent in his presentations in the Court of Law," a contemporary would later record, "and his superior abilities were known to all."99 The comment seemed apt as Percin plunged into the protest politics of the colony with an incisive exposé and censure of the administration. He asserted that by both terms of treaty and local enactment, the rights of the inhabitants of the colony as naturalized and British subjects "stood irrevocably established." He invoked legal authorities on the relative rights of governors and the governed in order to show "under what circumstances a government was to be considered as being no longer an object of obedience but of resistance, maintaining the principle that all political power flowed from the people."100 The present system was "unjust, unwarrantable, and tyrannical," he said as he spurned the composition of the Legislative Council, scoffing that one might select the Governor's own groom to be a member "as some of the automatons now composing the Legislative Council."101 Calling this "a mockery of legislation," Percin declared that he gave his vote "for that right of legal resistance justified by the circumstances" and announced that he would propose the appointment of a committee to make the necessary representations to Parliament.102
In delivering this blistering denunciation of the legislature, Henry Percin went against the wishes of the Association's president who had counseled members to avoid mentioning names during their debate and "abstain from personalities." They wanted "to stimulate a public rather than party spirit."103 However, the tenor of Percin's address made it clear that he did not share such sentiments. The polite criticisms that so often marked local political debates vanished as he abandoned any 'ancient custom' of courtesy and deference to government officials. Percin derided them as "accomplices" in an unjust and tyrannical system of government in the colony. Blunt and direct, he had stopped short of calling any names, to be sure, but who would not know the members of the legislature especially when they acquired such sobriquets as 'Governor's grooms'?
It is quite possible that Percin's attitude displayed his own frustration with the racial inequity that confronted even highly placed people of colour in the colony. For despite all his eloquence and superior abilities, Percin was still a man of colour in a society that measured social class and merit on race and had to bear the humiliation of racial discrimination that his white colleagues never had to face. His experience may well have led Percin to empathize with the plight of black working men and women, who were even more disadvantaged when it came to denial of their rights. By the following year, one finds him defending Henry Boy, the man whom the authorities charged with sedition and treason as the alleged ringleader of the 1849 peasant riots.104 On this day, however, Percin made no direct mention of personal grievances and like his colleagues in the Social Improvement Association, focused instead on the government as the main source from whence derived all of the colony's ills.
Urging citizens to engage in 'legal resistance' against their government was a bold proposition that marked an important shift in political strategy. Percin's onslaught had abandoned the supplicant approach and in effect rejected any notion that representation was a concession that officials could confer on the colony's citizens. On the contrary, they as citizens had the right of representation in the colony's government and they would stand in resistance against the legislature, as this body did not represent their interests. These early political stirrings, though radical in nature, did not seem to attract undue attention from British authorities. Coming from a small colony with sparse population, no one feared that Henry Percin's lonely call for 'legal resistance' in St Lucia would cause a group of discontented and powerless colonists to rise against the government. In any event, at the painfully slow pace of social change in the post slavery societies of the Caribbean, those who courageously challenged the hegemony of the colonial machine would reach the end of their normal lives before the first glimmer of reform would begin to take root. Still, Percin's incisive commentary is important because it inflicted the first serious wound to the credibility of crown colony administration in St Lucia. British authorities had consistently justified their imposition of this system of governance in terms of a moral obligation to protect the rights of the black population until they could "form constituencies sufficiently intelligent to secure themselves a true representation in a Legislative Body."105 Nevertheless, as Percin so adroitly analyzed, contrary to such claims, the unrepresentative nature of the system in fact raised the more fundamental and troubling questions relating to denial of the rights of the citizens and the obligations and responsibilities of the State.
This relationship between citizens and their government had been the subject of various philosophical discourses. Thomas Hobbes had adduced that a government existed based on a social contract or covenant whereby individuals transferred all power and authority to the sovereign who protected them in return.106 Later writers, notably John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau modified this social contract to embrace the obligations of the government and the rights of the governed.107 These philosophical debates paved the way for the emergence of powerful political ideologies that propelled men to rise against their oppressors and oppressive regimes in the greatest social upheavals of the modern period, embodied in the American and French Revolutions in the eighteenth century. These events, which shook and demolished political structures in distant lands, also had a great impact on political developments in St Lucia. The population had experienced the full brunt of the revolutionary fervour that gripped the small colony during the French Revolution triggering a ferocious battle between British invading forces and "insurgent slaves" who had banded themselves as the "l'armeé français au bois," or the 'Brigands' as the British preferred to describe them.108
Henry Percin was most likely familiar with this relatively recent history of resistance in which black fighters waged a long and bitter guerilla war (1794-99) against the much larger and better-equipped British forces. While the British eventually succeeded in brutally subduing the rebellion and re-imposing slavery in the colony, the embers from these searing encounters would long continue to simmer. Even when emancipation finally came a generation later, it was evident from the frequent skirmishes between a newly freed black working population and the proprietors and government officials that sought to control them, that neither military setbacks nor the many constrictions of slavery had daunted their spirit of defiance to local power holders.
This history of resistance in the colony provided an important backdrop for Percin's own crusade to rally opposition against the local oligarchy as he urged citizens to disobey its edicts as a demonstration of protest. It is difficult to know, however, whether his fierce criticisms were an attempt to tap on the longstanding discontent and grievances of the black population and thereby provoke a popular uprising against the regime. Since the Social Improvement Association had gone to some lengths to exclude the poorer members of the community from its membership, any direct appeal for their support could appear somewhat awkward. Moreover, Percin and others had to be quite judicious in their remarks and actions, less the authorities interpret these as being subversive. The case of Robert Purcell came before the June assizes of 1845 and was a chilling example of the consequences that could befall those who attempted to mobilize opposition against the government.109 This case had received such widespread publicity in the colony and was so recent, that Percin would have taken note as a practicing attorney. It also gives valuable insights into colony's system of justice, which to all appearances served as a prop to an unpopular political system and regime.
At Purcell's trial, the Attorney General, J.G. Porter Atthill portrayed political dissenters as examples of the bad subjects and dangerous men, which one found in all societies. "Unhappily, however mild the government, however beneficent the laws," Porter Atthill expounded, "in all societies there are to be found bad subjects, dangerous men, devoid alike of education, principle or stake in society. [They] set themselves up against all laws, and would fain be above them."110 As Atthill saw it, the government's duty was to punish such subjects. It should not permit "men misguided or misguiding ... to go through the length and breadth of the country, spreading, in times of excitement, their dangerous and destructive doctrines to men whose ignorance or whose wants make them an easy prey to the crafty and designing," he explained.111 In order to help punish such persons, it seemed that government had even constructed a moral scale to dispense its unequal justice by placing the heavy weight of responsibility on those it called "instigators." Speaking for the government, the Attorney General explained with a curious logic that there was a wide distinction between "the ill advised men" who took an active part in a riot and "the guilty instigators of [such] disreputable proceeding" who were working overtly and covertly as "the emissaries of sedition."112
Purcell's case had provided a precedent that the authorities hoped others would not ignore. Henry Percin's attack on the composition of the Legislature was therefore one fraught with risks in a land where local officials had a predilection for citing sedition at the first sign of political unreSt Percin had sought some cover by invoking the authority of British political thought. For example, his rhetorical question "under what circumstances a government was to be considered as being no longer an object of obedience but of resistance" was an obvious reference to John Locke's disdain for bad government. Indeed, as one follows the oratory and complaints from Henry Percin and the Social Improvement Association, it becomes evident that these men were echoing the 17th century English philosopher's 'right to rebel' prescription - that citizens had a right to overthrow their government if it did not live up to its obligations. "Sovereignty resided in the people for whom governments were trustees and that such governments could be legitimately overthrown if they failed to discharge their functions to the people."113
There was little likelihood that the colony's legislature was about to suffer any such fate although, according to the author of a pamphlet titled "Responsible Government in the Colonies," it was not at all difficult to persuade Englishmen "of the misgovernment and dissatisfaction that must exist in any country in which the people have no voice at all in the making of the laws."114 Instead, what had become quite evident in St Lucia was that discontent over British Colonial policy had turned the local society against itself, leading to the outbreak of intense conflict and rivalry between local government officials and anti government factions. Crown colony government, as an enduring institution designed to protect the interests of its absent sovereign, wasted the small colony's political energies in an internal discord that had little to do with relieving the many burdens and hardships of ex-slaves in the post emancipation society. It was no surprise, therefore, that when Henry Percin and the Social Improvement Association called for changes to the colony's system of government, they quickly ran into a major row with the executive. As we follow the unfolding dispute between the two parties, some insights into the government's maneuvers for suppressing political opposition also emerge.
The ostensible cause was Lieutenant Governor Charles Darling's refusal to transmit the Association's petition to the British Government.115 The petition carried the signatures of ninety-four persons island-wide, a significant number by local standards. However, on receiving it, Darling seized on a technicality that effectively enabled him to scuttle the initiative. If all the petitioners either were members of that body or had delegated the Association to conveying their Petition to his hands, he needed proof of this. "It should be accompanied by a copy, either of the Resolution of that Body by which the Petition was adopted and agreed to be transmitted to me, or of the authority which the Association received from the Petitioners to become the channel of its transmission." Further, he claimed to be "wholly uninformed" about the nature, constitution, and objects of the Association.116
It made little difference that the Association responded two days later with all the information relating to its existence, or that it explained that while the petition originated from the body, "it was signed by the Inhabitants generally."117 Also falling on deaf ears was the Association's sensible explanation that "having to collect signatures in many and remote parts of the island, it found it more convenient to send throughout the Colony, separate sheets of paper with a printed copy of the Petition thereto attached."118 The writers politely reminded the Lt. Governor "the same mode had been adopted for other Petitions in the Island and said they remained "convinced" that his "paternal intervention" would greatly facilitate the task that their Association had assumed for the moral, social and physical advancement of the inhabitants of St Lucia.119
These were clearly not Darling's intentions, as the Society's activities had become a source of grave concern to the government. Their proceedings showed "a dangerous tendency in some respects," Darling wrote, explaining that a great portion of the Society's 'Address' was directly intended for a labouring population "more than usually ignorant and uninformed." From the tenor of the Petition, and of certain verbal complaints that had reached him since he assumed leadership of this Government, Darling had apparently suspected and feared that an alliance with the black majority was taking root. He confided in the Governor his belief that their appeal "has not been without its effect in creating discontent among that class of the people, and in retarding the settlement of the Wages question, by which much labour was lost to the Planters."120 However, he assured his superiors that it was his anxious wish "to avoid a collision with this Society or with any section of the inhabitants" and he would gladly like them to unite with him for the public good.
His actions belied his statement.121 Citing an unspecified "constitutional question" that such a relationship involved, the Lt. Governor said he could "foresee endless difficulties in the conduct of this peculiar government, if a self constituted Political Body such as the "Social Improvement Association" should be recognized in any degree by the Executive."122 He also went to some lengths to convince his superiors that despite the Association's ability to amass a relatively large number of signatures of "highly respectable names, and others to which that character does not attach," it did not represent the public, or indeed any one of the "interests" of the colony. Since the Society's formation in 1847, only five additional members had joined its ranks although the body had reduced both its entrance fees and annual subscriptions, Darling contended, "a fact which does not tend to support the claim which the Society has in this instance set up, of representing the inhabitants of the Colony."123
The real problem facing the government was that the Society had been able to muster island wide support for its petition. Quite significantly, as well, "most of the respectable Inhabitants of the colony"124 as one observer put it, had affixed their signatures to the document. By brushing aside their concerns and unduly antagonizing this group of citizens, the government could further increase the tensions in an already volatile society. In any case, these citizens comprised the very class that the authorities would normally look to for support in their ongoing attempts at subduing a rebellious black population. Perhaps because of this, the government had felt it prudent to reassure the group that it was in support of political rights. He was "far from questioning the right of a body of Citizens, whether small or large, to associate themselves together for a political purpose, and to take whatever constitutional steps they may think fit to obtain a redress of their grievances, or even to effect an alteration in the form of their Government,"125 the Lt. Governor wrote soothingly. He then went into damage control by publicizing, in the official gazette, and the Palladium, an exchange of letters with the group "in order that the Inhabitants who signed the Petition ... may be fully aware of the circumstances which have prevented that Petition from reaching its original destination."126 The letters provide a veritable exposé on the government's policy that seemed to be 'how to frustrate and discredit your opponents.'
There was the Lt. Governor's specious claim that he could not recognize their right to constitute themselves the "Representatives of the Inhabitants of St Lucia" or the duly authorized medium for placing a petition in his hands, because only twelve out of the nineteen members had signed along with eighty-two Inhabitants who were non-members. He further claimed instances in which parties had signed the petition without being aware that it came from the Social Improvement Association.127 This referred to an apparently secret letter (not published) that was in his possession "from a most respectable and long established Mercantile House, the head of which is also the owner of landed property in the Island."128 Bearing date of 16th March 1848 and signed by D. Fergusson & Co.129 the letter made the astonishing claim that "some days ago a Printed Petition to Her Majesty the Queen was presented to us which we signed, without making any enquiry from whom it emanated."130 Stretching the incredulous tale a little further, Fergusson implied that other signatories were duped in similar manner. "It now appears," he continued, "that the President and Secretary of a Society styling themselves the 'Social Improvement Association' have sent this Petition, (which bears the signatures of most of the respectable Inhabitants of the Colony) to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor as if authorized by those whose signatures it bears." Fergusson repudiated the petition that he had signed, and assured the government that "we are not members of that association and that we never authorized the President and Secretary thereof to transmit the said petition to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor."131
Duncan Fergusson's about face looked suspiciously as collusion with the government. We do not know what motivated Fergusson's behaviour. There have always been those who are ever so willing to abandon pledge and principle to ingratiate themselves to the power holders or those with authority and influence. For his part, the Lt. Governor clung to this defection. It was an opportunity to tarnish the integrity of the Social Improvement Association and its leaders. In this way, he could undermine the population's confidence in the trustworthiness of a group that had mustered strong support among the citizenry.
He then thrust a new scare - the Association posed a threat to internal security because it held its meeting in secret. It was essential to public order and public safety that the proceedings of all such bodies should be open to the public, but to all intents and purposes, this was a Secret Political Association, Darling insisted, without giving a shred of evidence. This enabled him to tell the Association's sympathizers that he "could not, under any circumstances regard it as a fit medium of communication between the Public and the local Government of St Lucia."132 The action effectively muzzled the fledging association, rendering it useless as a political body and thereby virtually assuring its demise.
De Brettes and Macfarlane seemed resigned to the inevitable. When Darling returned their petition, they wrote back pointedly to the government, stating that they considered it unnecessary to enter into any discussion of the correctness of the views that Darling had expressed on the constitution of the Social Improvement Association.133 They were less reluctant, however, in taking umbrage at the damaging accusation that some persons had signed their petition without knowing from whence it had originated. They strongly countered any such claim and retorted that the Lieut. Governor had not communicated to them the names of these parties, "although we have a most undoubted and unquestionable right both in fairness and in justice to have them," they said with some justification. Both De Brettes and Macfarlane dismissed the claims outright, stating, "we do, in the most distinct and positive manner declare such statement to be false with the exception of two signatures, namely that of A. McCombie, and the other J[ohn] Patterson... Every other person who signed that Petition had before him the printed copy of it, as originally prepared by the association where it had come," their letter affirmed.134
It had become apparent from the strong rebuttals and denials from the Social Improvement Association's representatives that the members' main concerns were to salvage their integrity in the face of the government's allegations. They had acted quickly (Darling's letter carried the date of 24 March 1848, a Friday; the Association responded on 27 March 1848, the following Monday) to refute the statements and perhaps equally important, to vindicate themselves in the eyes of the colony's highest official. Curiously, they had raised no voice in protest against the Lieut. Governor's highhanded action in refusing to transmit their petition to the Colonial Office. They called no meeting to challenge Darling's claim that they were a secret body that posed a threat to public order and public safety. Perhaps they considered it was either pointless or too risky to run into further confrontation with the authorities. Some members may also have reasoned that to persist with an Association that had already incurred the government's displeasure might well invite, in the manner of Robert Purcell, the heavy hand of an official persecution against them. Whatever were the reasons, the Social Improvement Association capitulated to Charles Darling's political wiles.
The consequences would be far reaching. A group comprising some of the more powerful voices in the society had failed to induce the government to address its members' grievances. As their clamour for political reforms went largely unheeded, it was evident that even with their relatively privileged positions as wealthy white men and educated men of colour, they could not sway the authoritarian system of government in the colony. This left an undue burden on the black working population. Only through their own struggles would they have any hope of forcing the authorities to address the many issues of social reforms and fulfill the promises of emancipation. One year later in 1849, the "Labouring Class of St Lucia" confronted the government in a violent clash when the authorities failed to rescind the unreasonable and additional tax burdens on their provision grounds "so that poor people may have it in their power to earn a small living for themselves."135
They may not have known that their struggles and grievances would echo powerfully through other generations such for example, as the "Subjects of African Descent in St Lucia," who observed the fiftieth anniversary of emancipation by dispatching a petition to London. They reported on their progress during fifty years of liberty but reminded the British sovereign that they were still in "political tutelage." Calling on the authority to "powerfully" assist them in securing the "great boon" of education themselves, they further asserted that a "natural corollary of physical liberty" was "a measure of political liberty." This would give the people "the opportunity of electing their own representatives, who will be the fittest men to legislate in their own interests; and the laws thus made will be better adapted to their circumstances and requirements."136
In a society where the more privileged classes refused to recognize even the basic economic and civil rights of the working population, it would test the endurance of generations in moving towards 'that natural corollary of physical liberty.'
1 Despatch from the Governor of the Windward Islands to Mr. Henry Breen, Officer Administering the Government of St Lucia. Barbados, 6 October 1860. C. O. 253/127.
2 Henry Breen had previously served as Colonial Secretary in St Lucia and later as the first elected Mayor when Castries became a municipality in 1851. He had resided in the island and worked in the government service for nearly 30 years. He is better known for authoring a book on the History of St Lucia in 1844.
3 See F.R. Augier's article on the Morant Bay Rebellion, "Before and After 1865." New World Quarterly 2 (2) 1966. pp. 21-40. Though relating to Jamaica, this article stands as one of the most incisive critiques on colonial government and politics in the British Caribbean during the 19th century. See also the publication in honour of the author (which also contains a reprint of the article). Moore, Brian and Wilmot, Swithin, ed. Before and After 1865: Education, Politics and Regionalism in the Caribbean. Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston (Jamaica). 1998.
4 "Answers to the several Paragraphs of Mr. Chief Justice Reddie's letter to His Excellency Colonel Bunbury, Officer Administering the Government of St Lucia," on 6th June 1837. CO 253/55.
5 The description came from Lt. Col. Arthur Torrens, the Officer Administering the Government of St Lucia while addressing a meeting of the Legislative Council of 21 October 1844 in the wake of a riot in the town of Castries one week earlier - 14 October 1844. The Independent Press, 24 October 1844.
6 Herman Merivale, Lectures on Colonization and Colonies. London 1861. Reprints of Economics Classics, Augustus M. Kelly Publishers. New York 1967. p. 319
7 The article from the Tobago Gazette, (undated) appeared as a reprint in the Palladium 28 March 1840 under the caption "Colonial Intelligence." The reference was to the British Government's practice of appointing Military Governors in St Lucia. Henry Breen explains that during the different periods of British occupation of St Lucia, the Government was under administration of military commandants subject to the control of the Commander-in-Chief at Barbados. Little surprise that their terms of office had little to do with the needs or interests of the colony, as an officer so appointed would serve until it was time for his regiment to move, or when his staff appointment in the military ceased. See Henry Breen, St Lucia: Historical, Statistical and Descriptive. (1844). Reprinted Frank Cass, London, 1970. pp. 390-391.
10 Palladium, 20 May 1848. See also C.O.258/2
11 The individual who made the charge, Dr A.R. Robinson, cited various instances in support of his claim. Robinson, however, was himself a controversial figure in local politics. In 1847, the government claimed that he had formed a "Party" in the Island "opposed to every measure any Government has put forth" and accused him of fomenting discord through the pages of the Independent Press newspaper of which he was editor. Palladium, 20 May 1848; See also the Despatch from Lt. Governor Charles Hay to Col. Reid, Governor in Chief. 14 July 1847. CO 253/88.
12 "Legislative Power," The Sentinel, 25 April 1850. Perhaps this was an inevitable consequence in a small community where the political dominance of the British appointed representative easily spilled over in all areas of social life. As the most powerful figure in the colony, he was the main dispenser of patronage, privileges and justice.
13 The Palladium, 20 February 1847.
14 St Lucia Blue Book of Statistics, 1846. CO 258/ 42. The Palladium also reprinted the report on 20 February 1847.
17 Palladium, 20 February 1847.
18 Palladium, 20 February 1847.
19 The Independent Press, 17 October 1844. The petition carried the signatures of some of the most influential colored men in the colony.
20 The Independent Press, 17 October 1844.
21 "Reply of the Officer Administering the Government to a Memorial signed by Messrs. Patterson, Jacob, Aubert, Glaudon, and other Gentlemen, on behalf of LOUISON CHERY, lately tried and convicted before the Royal Court on a charge of willful and corrupt perjury." Extraordinary Gazette, Tuesday, 15 October 1844, published in the Independent Press, 17 October 1844.
22 The Independent Press, 17 October 1844.
23 Ibid. The writer complained that "discontent and insubordination" were complete and claimed that only the greatest prudence and forbearance could prevent a collision between the classes "into which the weakest party, the colored people, have most madly succeeded in splitting this hitherto united community."
24 The Palladium, 20 February 1847.
26 See Henry Breen, St Lucia, pp. 389 419. See also The Palladium, 20 February 1843.
27 The Palladium, 20 February 1847.
28 Under the arrangement, the colony had to contribute 500 pounds yearly to the salary of the Governor who was based in Barbados. An Officer Administering the Government (or President of Council) then replaced the Lieutenant Governor who previously served as head of the local government In the meantime, the colony also had to continue payment of salary at 500 pounds a year to the Lt. Governor/Officer Administering the Government. See Henry Breen, St Lucia, p. 422. The author also provides a comprehensive listing entitled "civil establishment of the colony of St Lucia on the 1st January 1844."
29 Notwithstanding this official change in position and title, St Lucians continued to refer to this officer as the Lieutenant Governor. We have retained this designation throughout this study.
30 St Lucia Ordinances 1836 - 1839, CO 255 (3) p. 7 The 'Poll Tax' ordinance came before the legislature on 21 December 1835.
31 The Colonial Gazette, 19 April 1843 reprinted in the Palladium, 1 June 1843.
32 Earl Grey, Secretary of State, once explained the administrative procedures at the Colonial Office during a debate in the House of Lords. "When a dispatch arrives it is taken to that division of the Colonial Office to which it belongs, where it is opened and registered and all correspondence relating to it is placed. It is then forwarded, in succession, first to the Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, from him it passes to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, and, lastly, it comes to the Secretary of State himself. Each makes a minute on the dispatch and the Secretary of State can simply approve or disapprove of suggestions." Debate in the House of Lords, Tuesday June 27, 1848: Free Labour in the British Colonies, p.55
33 The Colonial Gazette, 19 April 1843 reprinted in the Palladium, 1 June 1843.
34 The following individuals signed the letter to Charles De Brettes: P. Leuger, R. S. Robinson, R. J. Vaughan, M. Beausoleil, G. Leuger, F. Loustau, R. Drouilhet, B. Lacorbiniere, Jn. Macfarlane, D. Minvielle. Palladium, 13 February 1847.
35 "Public Notice," 10th February 1847. Palladium, 13 February 1847.
37 "Feast of St Peter," Palladium, 3 July 1845. This was apparently one of the few occasions when the society's elite joined the working population in a celebration. "All the proprietors and other respectable inhabitants of the quarter, enlisting as amateur fishers, joined in costume and played their parts with the real pécheurs, on the strand as well as on the sea, in admirable style."
38 The report refers to the attendance of "the most finished musicians on the island who executed several masterly performances. Among them, Mr. Glaudon, jun. whose magic strokes on the violin added in no small degree to the general enchantment of this fête chaupètre." Palladium, 3 July 1845.
39 Palladium, 13 February 1847.
40 Palladium, 20 February 1847.
41 Palladium, 20 February 1847.
42 Palladium, 20 February 1847.
43 Palladium, 27 February 1847.
44 The Palladium listed some of the names in attendance "amongst the landed proprietors, ship-owners, merchants and professional gentlemen" by District. Chas. Gaillard de Laubenque, D. Minvielle and L. Muter of Soufriere. Gaillard de Laubenque, jun. and Alfred de Laubenque of Choiseul and Ballambouche (sic); Gabriel Leuger of Anse-La-Raye; George Cotter and A.J. Beauc‚ of Micoud and Dennery; P. Dorcilly, R.S. Robinson, B. Lacorbiniere, and R.P. Chaplain of Gros Islet ("in which quarter are also situated the extensive properties of the Chairman"); M. Astie of Vieuxfort [sic]; Robert Muter, L. Glaudon, J.M.A. Aubert, John Macfarlane, James Macfarlane, X[avier] St Martin, A. Cools, H[enry] Percin, W. Seon, D. Bonnet, J. Abernethie, R. Drouilhet, F. Peter and A. Clavier (M.D.) of Castries. See The Palladium 27 February 1847.
45 "Public Meeting - Representative Government," Palladium, 27 February 1847.
48 This resolution was "for the purpose of more effectively bringing the earnest wishes and wants of the Inhabitants of St Lucia under the immediate attention of Her Majesty's government." Palladium, 27 February 1847.
49 This was a high-powered group comprising Charles De Brettes (chairman), Dr. R.S. Robinson, planter Gaillard de Laubenque, Jr. of Choiseul, J.J. Beausoleil, Gabriel Leuger, Advocates Xavier St Martin and J.M.A. Aubert who would act as a committee "vested with all authority to act for their fellow subjects in carrying out the objects of the above resolutions." "Public Meeting," Palladium 27 February 1847.
50 Wells assured his colleagues that he was "actuated by no other motive than that of rendering service towards the great and important object they had in view, and that nothing was further from his mind than the wish to disturb the prevailing harmony." Gaillard de Laubenque, J. Glaudon and A.J. Beauce quickly came to his support with even George Cotter, who had moved the resolution, sounding less than convincing. An infuriated James Macfarlane, Wells' bitter archrival, said he could not see why the voices of three individuals should be "decisive of the question." On his motion supported by Xavier St Martin, the meeting took a vote and defeated Wells' amendment to drop Robinson's name from the committee.
51 "Public Meeting." Palladium 27 February 1847.
52 The case of the planter William Muter, who waged a continuous battle with government officials over the tax measures in their annual estimates of revenue and expenditure, typified the dislike for such levies. See for example, William Muter "Financial History of the British Colony of St Lucia," original correspondence in C.O. 253/113.
53 The propaganda against the black population becoming free citizens assumed shrill proportions in St Lucia, as the planters and their allies were unrelenting in their opposition to emancipation. See the lead article in the Palladium, 30 June 1838.
56 The response was to the well-publicized meeting of 20 February 1847. St Lucia No: 50. Grey to Gov. Reid, 27 August 1847.
57 St Lucia No: 118. Grey to Governor Reid, 20 July 1848.
58 In the first decade of emancipation alone, there were riots in 1844, 1845 and 1849. For details on these, see Michael Louis, An Equal Right to the Soil: The Rise of a Peasantry in St Lucia, 1838-1900. (unpublished) 1981.
59 The main source for information on the Social Improvement Association is a Despatch from the Windward Islands Governor Reid to Earl Grey of the Colonial Office, dated 4th April 1848 in Windward Islands (Saint Lucia). C.O.253/91. The Despatch contains several enclosures dealing with exchange of letters between the Lt. Governor of St Lucia, Charles Darling and the representatives of the Association. The most useful is Enclosure No. 1 titled "Printed Copy of a Government Notice, publishing Correspondence with the Social Improvement Association... 25th March '48." The enclosure includes a number of printed articles (hereafter cited as Printed Correspondence) extracted from the local press. The articles date from the formation of the Association on 19 June 1847 to the following year, 1848, when controversy ensued with the government. Thereafter, there is little more information on the fate of the Association.
60 The following persons affixed their names to the resolutions that created the Social Improvement Association: Charles De Brettes, James Macfarlane, Jr., H. Percin, Pl. Leuger, F. Loustau, R. S. Robinson, R. B. Hannay, R. Drouilhet, G. De Rougemont, A. Cools, Muter Miller, W.A. Macfarlane, W. A. Macfarlane, J.M.A. Aubert, Robert Muter, CO 253/91. Printed Correspondence (No. 3).
61 CO 253/91 Windward Islands, Saint Lucia No. 34. Lt. Governor Charles Darling to Lt. Col. Reid, Governor in Chief. 1st April 1848. (No. 4: Enclosure with the Despatch).
62 Several of the clauses in the society's Laws dealt with the conduct of debates or with library related issues. C.O.253/91 Printed Correspondence, No. 5. Laws.
63 Printed Correspondence, No. 3. Minutes of the meeting of 19 June 1847.
65 CO 253/91 Windward Islands. Saint Lucia No. 28. Governor Reid to Early Grey.
66 There were ten resolutions covering every aspect relating to the new body and its activities - its 'objects', membership and subscription, meetings and procedures. The issue of taxation and representation raised in one of the resolutions was a politically charged matters during this period. CO 253/91. Printed Correspondence (No. 3).
67 Following a flurry of correspondence between the government and the Social Improvement Association in 1848 over the government's refusal to transmit a petition to London, little more has come to light on this group.
68 The members referred to the Social Improvement Association as the "Society" and in this discussion we use the terms interchangeably.
69 Henry Percin would later play a central role as defense lawyer in the trials that followed the 1849 riots. See biographical details on Percin later in this paper.
70 An Amended Article "as provided by the twenty-second clause of the laws," lowered admission fees to £2 sterling instead of £10, and yearly subscription to £2, instead of £5. See Printed Correspondence, No. 5. Laws. The society's laws consisted of forty-six (46) clauses. These were most likely adopted from the "drafts of regulations for the society and the library" that one of the committees had responsibility to prepare. The Amended Article came at the end of the 46th clause.
71 Printed Correspondence, No.3. The Minutes of meeting of 19 June 1847. The 3rd resolution outlined the society's objectives.
72 Printed Correspondence, No.4. Address from the "Members of the Social Improvement Association to the Inhabitants of Saint Lucia." The 'Address', dated Castries, 7th October 1847, carries the name of the President and the two secretaries as the signatories. This was undoubtedly the document that the June meeting had assigned a small group, including the president, to prepare. See also the Palladium, 23 October 1847.
74 Ibid. 'Address'. According to the writer the residence was a Palace "as compared with the dwelling of the least-poor of our fellow colonists."
76 Ibid. "Address." Although not condoning the activity, the society asked "Is it to be wondered at, that with our industry thus paralyzed, our energies thus studiously crushed down, some amongst us should be found insensible to wrongs, and indifferent to their rights as British Subjects?"
78 Palladium, 23 October 1847.
79 Palladium, 23 October 1847.
80 The Palladium's editor, Charles Wells, had a visceral dislike for Dr. Robinson and the two traded insults and slander in Robinson's Independent Press and Wells' Palladium. "As long as Robinson was suspected in having connection with the Association," Wells wrote, "so long will its meetings be limited to attendance of six or seven members as was the case last THURSDAY night." He derided the group as the Humbug Association. Palladium, 23 October 1847.
81 Palladium, Sat., 22 January 1848. Charles Wells was probably referring to one of his two bitter enemies: either Dr Robinson (see note #54) or Dr Reddie, "a barrister of long standing in Scotland," who became Chief Justice of St Lucia in 1835. Reddie was eventually convicted on a libel charge. Wells claimed that the Association "had been patronized by Reddie in large presents of books but what guarantee did that fact afford of the usefulness of the club to the public?" Reddie and Robinson, Well's nemesis, were the reputed editors of the rival Independent Press that began publication in 1838.
82 Printed Correspondence, No. 3. The 3rd Resolution.
84 Palladium, 6 May 1848. The 36th rule of the Society stated as follows: "It shall be competent for the President, with the consent of one - half the members present at any debate, to admit strangers to hear the discussion." See Printed Correspondence, No. 5. Laws.
85 Palladium, 6 May 1848. The editor said he was curious to see the manner in which this self constituted Tiere Etat proceeds with its business and he would be present "if the members consent."
87 Palladium, 20 May 1848. Cotter tried to explain that the problem was in the "wording of the advertisement" for the meeting, as many believed that members had to take a ballot before non-members could be admitted to the meeting, "and they were unwilling to incur the degradation of waiting at the door for the purpose." Xavier St Martin, a non-member, was the only person to support Cotter. See the society's 36th rule in Note 84 above.
89 The remark came from Dr R.S. Robinson as he traced the history of the colony's legislature. Palladium 20 May 1848.
90 William Muter, proprietor of several estates in the colony, waged an ongoing battle with the Legislature over its taxation policies.
91 A list of sixteen of the Castries Merchants signed a letter requesting permission to hold the public meeting. 1. Wm. Pattison, 2. D.G. Gordon, 3. M. Floissac, 4. Losteau Fréres, 5. Glandut & Mallet, 6. Wm. Barr & Co. 7. Wm. Miller & Co., 8. Gaillard De Laubenque & Co., 9. John Grant 10. L.J. Vandran, 11. Louis Aubert & Co., 12. L.C. Faget, 13. Henry King, 14. J.D. Cox. Palladium 13 October 1838.
92 On 26 September 1838, Muter had informed the Lt. Governor Col. Mein that "some of the Merchants of this town" had written to him [Muter] "as one of the principal Merchants of the Island, and individually interested in the welfare of the Colony." He attached a copy of the letter from the merchants as evidence and requested permission to hold a public meeting on 29 September 1838 to discuss their concerns.
93 Palladium, 13 October 1838.
94 Muter professed "great delight at this appearance of general panting after liberal institutions" and congratulated the community on "the auspicious revolution of feeling which had taken place in it." Palladium, 13 October 1838.
97 The remark came from Henry Percin in his contribution to the debate. Palladium, 20 May 1848.
98 See the Obituary of Henry Percin in The West Indian, 30 November 1858. Reprinted from the Palladium, 20 November 1858. Percin died on 17 November 1858 "after a long and painful illness."
99 The quotation comes from the above Obituary.
100 Palladium, 20 May 1848. Italics added.
101 Palladium, 20 May 1848. Italics added. Ironically, the hand picking procedure would become very much a part of the system of the party politics that came into existence in the next century.
104 Percin served as defense attorney for Henry Boy whom the authorities accused of instigating the 1849 riots. Boy faced charges of treason. See Louis, An Equal Right to the Soil.
106 William Ebenstein, Alan O. Ebenstein, Introduction to Political Thinkers (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers) 1992, p. 183. At the same time, Hobbes also inferred that the governed could virtually have no rights since "by participating in the creation of the sovereign, the subject is the author of all that the ruler does and must therefore not complain of any of the ruler's actions, because he would then be deliberately doing injury to himself."
107 See "The Social Contract", and article contributed by Ira Katznelson in Encarta 2002.
108 David Barry Gaspar, "La Guerre des Bois: Revolution, War, and Slavery in Saint Lucia, 1793-1838," in A Turbulent Time: The French Revolution and the Greater Caribbean, ed. David Barry Gaspar and David Patrick Geggus (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press) 1997.
109 In the Queen vs. Robert Purcell, the State charged Purcell with sedition. The authorities had arrested "a coloured person named Purcell (a native of Grenada) and a shopkeeper in Soufriere on the morning of 27 October 1844. Among others, he was charged for "wickedly, maliciously and seditiously contriving, devising and intending to stir up and excite discontent and sedition amongst her Majesty's subjects in this said colony." Purcell had also "unlawfully and wickedly" seduced and encouraged "divers of her Majesty's subjects to resist and oppose the Executive Government and bring the Government into odium and contempt and to scandalize and vilify" the members of Government on 11 October [1844].The trial took place on 12 June 1845. See CO 253 / 81. Torrens to Grey 29 October 1844. "Royal Court - Criminal Side," Palladium, 19 June 1845.
110 Palladium, 19 June 1845. Porter Atthill was addressing the opening of the Assizes.
111 Atthill had however conceded that "happily for us all, in the present instance they have been significantly unsuccessful." Palladium 19 June 1845
113 The statement comes from Ira Katznelson in his piece on "Thomas Hobbes" in Encarta 2002. See also "Locke: Two Treatises of Government" in William Ebenstein, and Alan O Ebestein, Introduction to Political Thinkers (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers) 1992, pp. 218-237.
114 Charles Buller, Responsible Government in the Colonies, reviewed in The Colonial Magazine and East India Review, January to June, 1849. Vol. xvi. All references and extracts relating to this work come from the Colonial Magazine's review.
115 The Social Improvement Association had read and approved this petition at a meeting it held on 21st October 1847. C.O. 253/91. Printed Correspondence, No. 1. See also No. 2 "Extracts from Minutes, 2nd March 1848."
116 Darling then cynically remarked that they might have acted in their individual capacities and in such case he would readily transmit the Petition although it was in some degree irregular "from the fact of the Signatures being upon sheets of paper entirely detached from the Petition itself." Letter from C.H. Darling, Lieut.-Governor to C. De Brettes, Esq. and James Macfarlane, Esq., 15th March 1848. Printed Correspondence in C.O. 253/ 91.
117 The respondents, James Macfarlane and Charles De Brettes went on to point out the obvious - that all these persons are not Members of the Association - and added that "in signing the Petition we have acted in our individual capacities, and in conveying it to your Excellency we have acted as delegates of the Association." Letter from C. De Brettes and James Macfarlane, 17 March 1848. Printed Correspondence, C.O. 253/91.
118 Ibid. The Lieut-Governor had raised the possibility of irregularity because the signatures were on sheets of paper entirely detached from the Petition itself.
119 Letter from De Brettes and James Macfarlane. Printed Correspondence.
120 Lieut. Governor Charles Darling's Despatch to Governor Reid, 1st April 1848. C.O. 253/91.
122 Ibid. Darling made no attempt to explain what constitutional point was involved in all this.
123 Ibid. See also the Printed Correspondence (not numbered) from James Macfarlane, Secretary to Charles Darling, Lieutenant Governor, List of the Members of the Social Improvement Association, 22 March 1848. One of the original members, Robert Muter, had since died.
124 The phrase comes from D. Fergusson, a local merchant, in a letter to the Colonial Secretary. See note no. 114.
125 Letter from Charles Darling to C. De Brettes.
126 Letter from Charles Darling to C. De Brettes, Esq., and James Macfarlane, Esq., 24th March 1848. Printed Correspondence in Charles Darling's Despatch to Governor Reid, 1st April 1848. C.O. 253/91.
128 Letter from Lieut. Governor Darling to Governor Reid, 1st April 1848. Enclosure. Despatch from Governor Reid to Earl Grey, 4th April 1848. Saint Lucia, no. 28. CO 253/91.
129 Letter from D. Fergusson & Co. to W. Hanley, Colonial Secretary, 16th March 1848. Enclosure. Darling's Despatch to Governor Reid, 1st April 1848. C.O. 253/91. The Association later complained that Darling would not disclose the names of the complaining parties although it was their "undoubted and unquestionable right both in fairness and justice" to know who their accusers were. Letter from President and Secretary (C. De Brettes and James Macfarlane,) 27th March 1848. Encl. CO 253/91.
130 Letter from D. Fergusson & Co. to W. Hanley, 16th March 1848. Emphasis added.
133 Letter from C. De Brettes and James Macfarlane, 27 March 1848. Enclosure. Lt. Governor Darling's Dispatch to Governor Reid, 1st April 1848. C.O. 253/93.
134 Ibid. In the case of Patterson and McCombie, the letter explained that they still knew the petition had emanated from the Association.
135 "Petition from the Labourers," in the Palladium 27 April 1849. For a detailed study of this riot see, "An Equal Right to the Soil:" The Rise of a Peasantry in St Lucia, 1838-1900. (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University 1981.)