A Crown Intervention in the Islands

The idea that the Crown (or the equivalent - the U.K. Government) cannot interfere in internal Island affairs is widespread, and is being especially promulgated at the moment both by figures like William Bailhache, or the Jersey Evening Post's own feature on the possibilities of complete independence. The general picture given is that the Crown leans on the Jersey authorities, who then comply by passing the relevant laws in Jersey - so that although the pressure is from the UK, the actual lawmaking is done in Jersey, and the UK does not interfere in local laws.

Two example I have been furnished with by Ed Le Quesne demonstrate how this works.

Jersey retained the death penalty for murder for quite a few years after it was abolished in UK, and expected the Home secretary to commute Jersey death sentences to life imprisonment. Eventually the States abolished the death penalty.

Jersey kept homosexual acts illegal for a long time after it was legal between consenting adults in private in UK Edgar Becquet, a Methodist, the responsible States member was leaned on pretty heavily by London before taking the law to the States making it legal in Jersey too.

As Ed comments: "We do need the UK to drag our social attitudes into the current century from time to time!". Indeed, if the Island was independent, it would be difficult to see how that would be accomplished.

As an example of dragging its heels, the UK has a Civil Partnerships Law, but Jersey has no similar legislation A green paper has been around since 2006, and in May 2007 it was announced that a law would be drafted due for introduction in fourth quarter of 2008! Don't hold your breath!

In fact, the Crown has acted to nullify an existing law passed by the States. This was not the States agreeing to pass a law under pressure so that the appearance of independence could be maintained, as in the above examples, but this was a case of making a law passed by the States - on the orders of the Privy council in England - made null and void. A recent letter in the Jersey Evening Post commented on this.

WITH respect to a recent comment by the Attorney General, William Bailhache, that 'if there is some grave or serious breakdown of civil order, the Crown has power to step in' and his comment: 'It's not happened in 800 years, so why should it happen now?', that is historically inaccurate.

In 1774 fifty-two men refused to drill in the Jersey Militia on Sundays because of their religious principles, these men being Methodists.


Fines and imprisonment, often with solitary confinement, were brought against many of their number, but in the autumn of 1798 the States, losing patience, in a decision of egregious folly, decided to pass an Act to the effect that every man refusing to serve personally in the Island Militia in accordance with its military establishment, and persisting in such refusal, should be condemned to banishment by the Royal Court.

After the adoption of this Bill by the States, Jerseyman Peter Le Sueur managed to gain an audience with George III to speak against it, and the result was an intervention by the Crown, whereupon an Order in Council was obtained, registered in the States' records on 28 January 1799, stating that His Majesty, with the advice of the Privy Council, disapproved of the Act in question, declaring the same 'to be void and of none effect'.


It is perhaps of interest that William Wilberforce, the great reformer, helped Peter Le Sueur to gain access to Royal circles.


This clearly establishes a fairly good precedent for Crown intervention in Island affairs, on the basis of one single individual raising a matter in which he accused the States of Jersey of perpetrating an injustice against some of its citizens. A little over 200 years is far more recent than the 800 years mistakenly mentioned by Mr Bailhache.

I have found a fuller account in ""Methodism in the Channel Islands" by R.D. Moore (1952), Pages 60-69, which mentions this. Here are a few extracts:

The Methodist attitude appeared unpatriotic, and became highly unpopular. The 'authorities' determined to subdue these troublesome consciences and settle the matter once and for all. It was in Jersey that the struggle was most severe and prolonged.

Charles Blampied of Trinity was the first victim. He was repeatedly fined and imprisoned. (It was a typical eighteenth-century prison with underground dungeons, dark and damp, in the neighbourhood of the present Charing Cross.) The Jersey Methodists presented a petition to the States in which they offered yet again to fulfil the required service on any other day (though to their own disadvantage) and declared their willingness to fight in defence of their Island at any time. They asked for nothing more than respect of their conscientious objections to the Sunday drills. The twenty-eight signatories deserve grateful remembrance:

Charles Bishop, P. T. Le Gros, Clement Guilleaume, Frs. Gaudin, Thomas Anthoine, Philippe Vivian, John Hepburn, John Sinel, Philippe Picot, Thomas Giffard, Frs. Jeune, Elie Le Blanc, Phil. Norman, Nicholas Bailhache, Wm. Howard, Charles Blampied, Thomas Le Riche, Phil. Le Ruez, Ed. Le Caudais, Phil. Hardelay, John Langlois, John Renon, Abm. Renault, J. Frs. Montbrun, P. Le Sueur, Sen., P. Le Sueur, Jun., John Ahier, Abraham Giffard.

Dean Le Breton was the only clergyman who spoke in their favour and the petition was dismissed with contempt. Jean Lucas of St Ouen's (afterwards a capable local preacher), Pierre Le Sueur, Jun., Clement Guilleaume, John Sinel, Thomas Baudains, Philippe Perchard, and Francois Jeune were also of the 'martyr host' who 'followed in their train'. The details of their conflicts, though too long to be related here, are all worthily preserved.

Realising their failure to suppress these determined Methodists by fines and imprisonment, the Jersey Court tried other methods. In 1797 the preacher appointed by Conference, Thomas Simmonite, was expelled from the Island. The following year his successor, Joseph Brookhouse, shared the same fate and until a ship was available was sent to prison. In August 1799 the Court arbitrarily closed' the Methodist place of worship at St Helier.

In October of the same year a further expedient was devised. A Law was passed by the States imposing banishment on all Jerseymen who refused to conform with the laws and usages of the Militia Act. This required Royal Consent in Privy Council, but it was so drawn as to suggest that it was aimed only at the most obdurate offenders. There was no mention of the Methodists nor of their petition.

Adam Clarke and his colleagues in London had already, in 1797. written to William Wilberforce. M.P.. acquainting him with the facts, and had received a sympathetic reply. Wilberforce saw the Secretary of State on the subject, but the Government were unwilling to oppose the Jersey Authorities on such an issue in the prevailing tensions of the period.

The Jersey Methodists determined to send two of their number as a delegation. Philippe Vivian and Pierre Le Sueur, Jun., went first to Portland to interview Brackenbury. Vivian returned to Jersey and Le Sueur went on to London with a letter of introduction to Wilberforce and to the Methodist Ministers in London. Dr Coke was hastily recalled from Manchester, Wilberforce was interviewed, and a petition to the King drawn up. Dr Coke meanwhile wrote personally to several of the Ministers of the Crown.

The Governor of Jersey, being consulted by one of these, replied: 'The rejection of the Act could not but create a very painful discord between himself and the authorities of the Island.' In communicating this reply to Dr Coke the Minister said he would not be justified in bringing about such a result, and that it would be ill-advised to proceed with the petition.

On 12th December 1798 the Privy Council was held. Dr Coke and Le Sueur were supported by the Revs. John Pawson and Alexander Mather. Le Sueur had the opportunity of stating clearly that Methodists were not refusing to serve but only to drill on Sundays. They were willing to drill on week-days and to pay any extra expense involved. George the Third turned to the Duke of Portland and said outright: 'Portland, I must not have my subjects oppressed in this way.' The Committee of the Privy. Council reported in the same spirit.

The wording of the final note to the States of Jersey is quite significant in the force in which it is stated!

His Majesty having taken the said report into consideration, is hereby pleased, with the advice of His Privy Council, to disapprove the said Act and doth hereby declare the same to be void and of no effect. Whereof the Governor or Commander-in-Chief, Bailiff and Jurats, and all other. His Majesty's officers in the said Island, for the time being, and all other persons whom it may concern, are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly.


Links

"Methodism in the Channel Islands" by R.D. Moore (1952), Pages 60-69

A Popular History of Jersey", A.E. Ragg, 1896

Civil Partnerships - Green Paper
http://www.gov.je/StatesGreffe/MinisterialDecision/ChiefMinister/2007/civilpartnershipsgreenpaper.htm