On Cats

Some people are cat people, but some people are not. The biographer of Canon Henry Liddon tells how a small niece (whose family lived with Liddon) was once asked by Bishop Jackson on what he talked about. "Cats", she replied. "Oh yes, we all know Canon Liddon's affection for cats", said the Bishop, "but he can't talk every night and all night about cats. What does he talk about when he is not talking about cats?" "Bishops", replied the small niece.

The book "Leader's of the Church: 1800-1900" tells us that "Liddon's domestic affections were concentrated on cats, which he cherished with an eager but discriminating devotion. His niece writes 'As soon as he arrived on a visit to us, he sent for the parrot to sit in his room while he worked, and tried to bribe the dog of the house to do the same.'"

Henry Parry Liddon (20 August 1829 - 9 September 1890) was an English theologian, and was born at North Stoneham, in Hampshire, being the eldest son of Captain Matthew Liddon, R.N.. He was a literalist, taking the line in his his Bampton Lectures of 1866 that since Jesus believed Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, David to have written Psalm 110 and Jonah to have lived in the fish, that Christians should do so to.

But clearly some of his views changed. On evolution, in 1882, he said that: "It may be admitted that when Professor Darwin's books on the ' Origin of Species' and on the ' Descent of Man' first appeared they were largely regarded by religious men as containing a theory necessarily hostile to fundamental truths of religion. A closer study has greatly modified any such impression. It is seen that whether the creative activity of God is manifested through catastrophes, as the phrase goes, or in progressive evolution, it is still His creative activity, and the really great questions behind remain untouched."

In 1867 Charles Dodgson, (alias Lewis Carroll) went on a tour to Russia with Henry Liddon. It has been suggested that Liddon was the basis for the Mock Turtle as he was a tutor at Oxford at the same time as Dodgson was there. Liddon also suggested the title "Through the Looking-Glass" for the sequel, which originally was entitled "Behind the Looking-Glass"

He died at the height of his reputation, having nearly completed a biography of Pusey. In this year of his death,  here is an extract from the last sermon preached on Whitsunday, 1890, in which he ranges himself against the Whig interpretation of history as "progress", and warns the listener that there is no infallible rule of progress. In a little over two decades after his death, his words would prove prophetic as the First World War began, sweeping away the triumphalist attitude of his day:

It is natural to us to think that the days in which we live are wiser and better than any before, and that in throwing our thoughts without restraint into the main currents of the hour we are doing the best we can with our short span of life. And yet we might observe that many a past generation has cherished this notion of an absolute value attaching to the thought and temper of its day, while we, as we look back on it, with the aid of a larger experience, can see that it was the victim of an illusory enthusiasm. When we analyse the ingredients that go to make up the spirit of the time, of any one phase of time, and when we observe that, notwithstanding its stout assertions of a right to rule, it melts away before our very eyes like the fashions of a lady's dress, into shapes and moods which contradict, with equal self-confidence, its former self, we may hesitate before we listen to it as if it were a prophet, or make a fetish of it, as though it had within it a concealed divinity. The spirit of any generation may have, must have, in it some elements to recommend it; but assuredly it has also other and very different elements, and the question is whence do they come, and whither are they drifting? All that is moving, interesting, exciting in the world of ideas, in the successive conceptions of the meaning and purpose of life that flit across the mental sky, is not necessarily from, nor does it necessarily tend towards, the Source of good. The mere movement of the ages does not in itself imply a progress from lower to higher truth, from darkness to light; movement is possible in more directions than one.

In his obituary, he was described as "a brilliant story teller, one of the very best I have ever known. Indeed, he had a special gift in that direction, and would dramatize in a most effective way....His humour was a most refreshing, sparkling, surprising thing. It flowed freely, especially in the evenings".  And so to my other, and longer extract, from "The Expository Times", again written during his last year, which is a wonderfully light and chatty piece on cats.

---

On Cats by Canon Liddon
 
CATS are like oysters, in that no one is neutral about them ; every one is, explicitly or implicitly, friendly or hostile to them. And they are like children in their power of discovering, by a rapid and sure instinct, who likes them and who does not. It is difficult to win their affection ; and it is easy to forfeit what it is hard to win. But when given, their love, although less demonstrative, is more delicate and beautiful than that of a dog.
 
Who that is on really intimate terms with a cat has not watched its dismay at the signs of packing-up and leaving home ! We ourselves have known a cat who would recognise his master's footstep after a three months' absence, and come out to meet him in the hall, with tail erect, and purring all over as if to the very verge of bursting. And another cat we know, who comes up very morning between six and seven o'clock to wake his master, sits on the bed, and very gently feels first one eyelid and then the other with his paw. even an eye opens, but not till then, the cat sets up a loud purr, like the prayer of a fire-worshipper to the rising sun.
 
Those who say lightly that cats care only for places, and not for persons, should go to the Cat Show at the Crystal Palace, where they may see recognitions between cat and owner that will cure them of so shallow an opinion. When we were last there, one striking instance fell in our way. Cats greatly dislike these exhibitions ; a cat, as a rule, is like Queen Vashti, unwilling to be shown, even to the nobles, at the pleasure of an Ahasuerus. Shy, sensitive, wayward, and independent, a cat resents being -placed upon a cushion in a wire cage, and exposed to the unintelligent criticism, to say nothing of the fingers, of a mob of sightseers. One very eminent cat, belonging to the :Master's Common Room at Christ Church, Oxford, whose size and beauty have on several occasions entailed on him the hard necessity of attending a Cat Show, takes, it is said, three days to recover from the sense of humiliation and disgust which he feels, whether he gets a prize or not. On the occasion to which we refer, a row of distinguished cats were sitting, each on his cushion, with their backs turned to the sightseers, while their faces, when from time to time visible, were expressive of the deepest gloom and disgust. Presently two little girls pushed through the crowd to the cage of one of the largest of these cats, crying, "There's Dick !"Instantly the great cat turned round, his face transfigured with joy, purred loudly, and endeavoured to scratch open the front of the cage, that he might rejoin his little friends, who were with difficulty persuaded to leave him at the show.
 
No doubt, local attachment is a prominent feature of a cat's mind ; and a very good quality it is too. It, however, often gets cats into odd company, as it did those cats whom Baruch mentions as sitting upon the idols of Babylon, if not into serious misfortune. Under this head, our readers should study the story, given by M. Champfleury, of the French cure's cat, who was only induced to leave an old presbytery by being put into a bag and dipped in a pond.
 
This attachment to place is closely connected with a cat's fine power of accurate observation. When a piece of furniture has been moved from its accustomed place, all the cats in the house set themselves to examine the phenomenon, with a view to discovering, if possible, its reason. Cats are, we apprehend, inveterate Conservatives. This principle, rather than ill-nature or jealousy, explains their conduct on the arrival of a new companion. They, first of all, tentatively examine it; then, especially if it be a kitten, they all spit at and scratch it. Only after slow approaches and the lapse of three or four days is the new-comer received even provisionally into the circle of established cats ; but at the end of a month it is just as secure in its position as is the first Reform Bill in the British Constitution, or any aged peer in the House of Lords. This ready acceptance of accomplished facts illustrates that quality of sagacity in cats upon which M. Champfleury lays stress.
 
Cats are, however, sometimes strangely at fault. So was Madame Theophile, a red cat with a white breast, pink nose, and blue eyes, who was "on terms of the closest intimacy" with M. Theophile Gautier. When Madame first saw a parrot, she evidently took it for a green chicken, and was preparing to deal with it accordingly. She gradually made her approaches; and at last, with one bound, sprang upon the perch where the parrot was sitting. But the bird, without moving, addressed Madame in a deep bass voice, "As-tu déjeuné, Jacquot?" For this accomplishment the cat was wholly unprepared ; after all, it might be a man in disguise. The bird followed up its advantage by further questions "Et de quoi?" "Du roti du roi?" and as the cat retired in sheer terror, proceeded to quote French verses, which naturally and utterly completed Madame's discomfiture.

First Planting

The 2nd February is Candlemas, but is also the ancient festival of Imbolc. Here is a meditation for that festival...


First Planting
 
Long ago at this season, our people set out on a journey. Our native lands had suffered poor harvests, and there was a famine, and fighting over food. So we gathered our cattle, and our bags of grain, and set off away from the conflict, to find a good soil where we could settle and plant anew.
 
Now our tribe was weary. For many months we had travelled across a cold and desolate land, following our wise man, who told us the omens were ripe for our departure, as Saturn and Jupiter moved closer to each other, heralding a sea journey. We passed through the wild woods, and from there to the coastal regions, where we saw the sea, blue and clear. There we cut down trees, and made a ship and embarked to find a new land.
 
A soft wind from the south began to blow, and we sailed as close as we could to the coast. But soon a very strong cold wind - the one called "Northeaster" - blew down. It hit the ship, and since it was impossible to keep the ship headed into the wind, we gave up trying and let it be carried along by the wind. For many days we could not see the sun or the stars, and the wind kept on blowing very hard, and there was a violent storm. Our ship was lifted high in the air and plunged down into the depths. In such danger, our sailors lost their courage; they stumbled and staggered like drunks, and all their skill was useless.
 
Our children were crying, and we were all afraid, with the rain pounding around us, and the ship heaving in the tempestuous seas. But there was with us our old wise man, who was also a weather worker, and as the storm reached its height, he stood up, and spoke softly to the wind, and the wind and waves diminished, and soon there was a great calm.
 
So it was that we came into the small bay of the Island that was to be our home, and there we managed to make the ship's boat secure and disembarked on golden sands with waves breaking on the shore around us.
 
All the tribe disembarked, and climbed upwards, until at last we came to a high place. It was night, and Saturn was slowly been rising in the east. This was the place for us to settle down, and we made a blazing bonfire for thanksgiving to the gods who had brought us here through perils to safely. And from the fire, we lit candles, and passed them around our circle.
 
Then the wise women stood and intoned this blessing
 
Blessed is the match consumed in kindling flame.
Blessed is the flame that burns in the secret fastness of the heart.
 
May the light of the candles we kindle together tonight bring radiance to all who still live in darkness.
 
Lighting these candles, we create the sacred space of the Festival of freedom; we sanctify the coming-together of our community.
 
And the following day, we began to build our huts, and till the soil, so that the seeds were ready to plant. Very soon, the land was ready, and the elder of the tribe stood and blessed the soil:
 
Blessed be the Earth Mother, and all creative hands
Who plant and harvest our fertile lands.
 
Blessed be the orange carrot and brown cow,
Bless also potato and mushroom, even now
Bless too red ripe tomato and runner bean,
And blessed be parsley and peas so green
And onion and thyme, garlic and bay leaf,
Blessed be the yellow corn, each golden sheaf
And blessed be all that we come to sow
In the good soil, that so richly does bestow.
 
May all be fed, may all be nourished, and may all be loved.
 
Now we are settled into this new land and have put down firm roots. And as long as the world exists, there will be a time for planting and a time for harvest. There will always be cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night. And we shall always plant, and while we care for the land, the land will nourish us, and each spring we plant the seed into what seems to be the dead soil, and life is born anew, and the green blade rises once more.

Shards of Glass

A somewhat melancholy poem. These dark and cold nights don't help moods!
 
Shards of Glass
 
The window broken, smashed beyond repair,
Once told a fine tale, in brightly coloured glass;
But now all that remains are fragments of despair,
And shattered edges gleaming on the grass.
 
Cold winds blowing though empty void arising;
Where is feeling? To care too little or too much?
And the mind that comes to bitterness, despising,
Where once was joy, softest caress and touch.
 
Now whitewashed walls hide the images behind,
Bury deep the memories, for here is reformation;
And the cutting off the past is really being kind,
For all that it seems like destruction and negation
 
The heart of glass is no more, however unintended,
But the pain of loss remains, and is not transcended.

 

Jersey Under the Swastika - IV The Occupation

Continuing the occasional transcription of Ralph Mollet's account of the Occupation of Jersey, this extract takes us up to the point when the Island was occupied.

"He asked me how long the British had occupied the Island. I replied that we conquered England in 1066. He smiled."

Ralph Mollet's reply to the German Officer is one that, as a schoolboy, I learnt as a commonplace piece of Jersey lore, because of course, Jersey had been part of Normandy. But until fairly recently, I didn't know exactly how substantial that claim was - if it was, for instance, just a claim that Jersey was part of Normandy, and hence as the Normans invaded England, so Jersey was part of that by proxy. In fact, as Rosemary Hampton shows in "A Jersey Family", there were Jersey families who went over to England at the time of the conquest.

In 2005, as part of the local Senatorial elections, there was a referendum on whether Jersey should adopt Central European time. This was rejected by by 72.4% of those who voted. The proposition itself, and most of the arguments, scarcely mentioned the Occupation - I have had a quick skim of the news stories, and there is no mention there of the Occupation in all the main stories and reports. And yet the Island did have Central European Time during the Occupation. During a period when links with England were cut off, and most communication, especially by the German forces, was to Europe, this made a lot of sense, more so than it did recently. The German Officer (Captain Gussek) seems to have been unaware of Jersey following British time, which led to a mix up on times with him meeting the Bailiff.

There was promptly a raft of orders, of which the most significant as far as the Island's governance was concerned, was that the orders would be "registered in the records of the Island of Jersey" and "Offences against the same, saving those punishable under German Military Law, shall be punishable by the Civil Courts". This neatly placed part of the responsibility for compliance with German orders in the hands of the Jersey authorities, and led to what Paul Sanders called "the corrosive character of Nazi rule" where "many administrations that started out with a pristine record became increasingly tainted as they went along with incessant German demands, trapping themselves into logics which they had not foreseen and which offered
no exit.".

A case which exemplifies this is given by Sanders:

While investigating a robbery in late May 1943 the St Saviour's honorary police received information from neighbours that a James Davey had one or more wireless sets at his residence. And indeed, when they followed up this information, they discovered three wireless sets, two of which were the property of a second man, Frederick Page..... The police now faced the dilemma of either submitting a report which might lead to the prosecution of a fellow islander or running the risk of a denunciation to the Germans that the island police were defying their orders; the likelihood of which was increased by the fact that the police investigations emerged from a neighbour's quarrel and that the discovery of the wireless sets was known and generally talked about. The dilemma was aggravated by the fact that since the passing of an 'Order for the Protection of the Occupying Authorities [sic]', on 18 December 1942, the authorities were obliged - under threat of punishment - to signal to the Germans all information which came to their attention bearing a relation to infractions of German orders.(1)

This was the dark side of the Occupation, that the forces of justice were co-opted into working with the Germans. The notion, as expressed in the Jersey Law Review of 2004, that the Islands "are entitled to take pride in legal systems which have an unbroken history of at least 800 years"(1) airbrushes out these five dark years, when the legal systems were twisted and bound under the Nazi yoke.

---

Jersey Under The Swastika by Ralph Mollet
IV THE OCCUPATION

When a German airman saw the signs of surrender, he landed at the air port, and was told that the Island was ready to comply with the terms offered, and at 3.30 p.m. another plane landed, and asked for the Bailiff to meet a certain number of planes at 4.30 p.m.

The Bailiff, the Attorney-General, and the Government Secretary met the planes at the air port. The German Commander Obernitz was in charge. When the Bailiff; returned to his chambers, he said that a German officer would arrive at the chambers at to a.m. the next day.

The Occupying Force, all air borne, of about 100 men was under the command of Hauptmann Gussek. The Attorney - General then conducted the officers to the Post Office Instrument Room (communication with England had been cut off at 8.15 a.m.), and to the Town Hall (to be occupied as the Military Headquarters), and obtained billets for the men at various hotels.

The day passed without alarms, and was a relief, as the tension during the last few days had been very great, almost equal to the days of the panic of the previous week

Tuesday, July 2nd. The white flag was flying on all public buildings and the majority of houses throughout the Island, and early in the morning troops with machine guns were already posted at various parts of the town.

When I arrived in the Square at 9 a.m. I saw a German officer with a civilian (a local German resident, C. Specker) walking up and down the Square. A resident came up, and told me that the German officer was looking for the Bailiff. I made myself known to this officer Captain Gussek, through his interpreter. The Captain saluted and shook hands. I said that the Bailiff expected him at 10 o'clock. He replied that it was already 10 a.m., Central European Time. I at once conducted him to the Bailiff's chambers; my feelings and thoughts were difficult to describe. He asked me how long the British had occupied the Island. I replied that we conquered England in 1066. He smiled. He produced to me an ordnance map of Jersey, and asked where he could obtain similar maps. I sent the porter out to purchase some; he said he would pay for them. The Bailiff arrived shortly afterwards, and together with the Attorney-General, the Government Secretary, and some other officials, conferred with Capt. Gussek. The Bailiff then came out and said in a loud voice: "Haul down the Flag of Surrender." I passed this on to the States Engineer and to the houses situated in the vicinity, and in a short time the flags were hauled down. A German Flag was hoisted at the Fort Regent Signal Post for one day, and then it was flown at the Albert Pier Head permanently, as well as at the Town Hall; no flag was flown at the Court House.

The following orders were then issued by Capt. Gussek:

1 All inhabitants must be indoors by 11 p.m. and must not leave their homes before 5 a.m.
2. We will respect the population of Jersey; but, should anyone attempt to cause the least trouble, serious measures will .be taken.
3. All orders given by the Military Authority are to be strictly obeyed.
4. All spirits must be locked up immediately, and no spirits may be supplied, obtained, or consumed henceforth. This prohibition does not apply to stocks in private houses.
5. No person shall enter the Aerodrome at St. Peter.
6. All Rifles, Airguns, Revolvers, Daggers, Sporting Guns, and all other Weapons whatsoever, except Souvenirs, must, together with all Ammunition, be delivered at the Town Arsenal by 12 (noon) tomorrow, July 3rd.
7. All British Sailors, Airmen, and Soldiers on leave, including Officers, in this Island must report at the Commandant's Office, Town Hall, at 10 a.m. tomorrow, July 3rd.
8. No boat or vessel of any description, including any fishing boat, shall leave the Harbours or any other place where the same is moored, without an Order from the Military Authority, to be obtained at the Commandant's Office, Town Hall. All Boats arriving in Jersey must remain in Harbour until permitted by the Military to leave. The crews will remain on board. The Master will report to the Harbour Master, St. Helier, and will obey his instructions.
9. The Sale of Motor Spirit is prohibited, except for use on Essential Services, such as Doctors' Vehicles, the Delivery of Foodstuffs, and Sanitary Services, where such vehicles are in possession of a permit from the Military Authority to obtain supplies. THE USE OF CARS FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES IS FORBIDDEN.
10. The Black-out Regulations already in force must be obeyed as before.
11. Banks and Shops will be open as before.
12. In order to conform with Central European Time all watches and clocks must be advanced one hour at 11 pm TONIGHT
13. It is forbidden to listen to any Wireless Transmitting Stations, except German and German-Controlled Stations.
14. The raising of Prices of Commodities is forbidden.

The German Commandant of the Island of Jersey
July 2nd, 1940

The next day all members of the British Forces paraded at the Town Hall, nearly all in civilian dress, mostly men who had crossed during the evacuation to see what had become of their relatives, and had been caught here. About ninety gave in their names, and paraded each day, until they were interned in the camp at Grouville, and then sent on to Germany as Prisoners of War on the 27th July. The next few days the population began to settle down, the Bailiff being in daily conference with the Commandant at the Town Hall.

On July the 8th the following Proclamation was issued:

Orders of the Commandant of the German Forces in Occupation of the Bailiwick of Jersey. Dated the 8th day of July, 1940.

1. The German Commandant is in close touch with the Civil Authorities and acknowledges their loyal co-operation.
2. The Civil Government and Courts of the Island will continue to function as heretofore, save that all. Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Orders will be submitted to the German Commandant before being enacted.
3. Such legislation as, in the past, required the Sanction of His Britannic Majesty in Council for its validity, shall henceforth be valid on being approved by the German Commandant, and thereafter sanctioned by the Bailiff of Jersey.
4. The Orders of the German Commandant, heretofore, now, and hereafter issued, shall in due course be registered in the records of the Island of Jersey, in order that no person may plead ignorance thereof. Offences against the same, saving those punishable under German Military Law, shall be punishable by the Civil Courts, who shall enact suitable penalties in respect of such offences, with the approval of the German Commandant.
5. Assemblies in Churches and Chapels for the purpose of Divine Worship are permitted. Prayers for the British Royal Family and for the welfare of the British Empire may be said. Church Bells may ring ten minutes before Service. Such Assemblies shall not be made the medium for any propaganda or utterances against the honour or interests of, or offensive to, the German Government or Forces.
6. Cinemas, Concerts, and other Entertainments are permitted, subject to the conditions set out in Order No. 5 above.
7. Prices must not be increased or decreased. Any shopkeeper offending against this order is liable to have his shop closed, and also to pay any fine that may be imposed by the Competent Authorities.
8. The sale and consumption of wines, beer, and cider is permitted in such premises as are licensed; by the Civil Authorities.
9. Holders of Licences for the sale of such intoxicating liquors (wines, beer, or cider) shall take the most rigid precautions for the prevention of drunkenness. If drunkenness takes place on such licensed premises, then without prejudice; to any other civil penalty the Island Police shall and are hereby empowered to close the premises.
10. All traffic between Jersey and Guernsey is prohibited, whether direct or indirect, for the time being (other Regulations will follow).
11. The Rate of Exchange between the Reichsmark and the Pound has been fixed at Eight Marks to the Pound.
12. The Continuance of the privileges granted to the civilian population is dependent upon their good behaviour. Military necessity however may from time to time require the Orders now in force to be made for stringent.

For and on behalf of the German Commandant of the Channel Islands
(Signed) Gussek, Hauptmann, Commandant, Jersey

The first Departmental Order to be signed by the Commandant Gussek was on the 5th July, 1940, and the minutes of the States held that day were also the first to be signed by him.

The following important order was made, as the German Army of Occupation soon began to purchase wines, spirits, cigars, cigarettes, and tobacco, as well as clothing, boots, and shoes, and all sorts of articles from the well-stocked shops of St. Helier. They paid in Reichsmarks.

Order of the Commandant of the German Troops in Occupation in Jersey.

IMPORTANT NOTICE.

Shopkeepers of the Island of Jersey are notified that I have informed the members of the German Forces in the Island they must not purchase more than
50 Cigarettes or 25 Cigars
1 bottle of Wine or 2 bottles of Beer to take away for their own consumption.
3 Shirts, Collars, and Ties.

Only one suit length of cloth allowed per man. All purchases must be restricted in quantity as above. In the event of a larger quantity being required, an Order will be issued by myself.

No foodstuffs, other than fruit, biscuits, confectionery, may be bought by any soldier.

In case of doubt the matter must be referred to the Commandant, who will give a decision.
(Signed) GUSSEK, HAUPTMANN,
Commandant of the Island of Jersey.

The Jersey Chamber of Commerce urges the Trading Community to assist the German Commandant in the strict observance of the Order.
St. Helier, 11th July, 1940

The next day, 12th July, cars were requisitioned by the Air Force and painted grey, preference being given to American makes. On the 13th July a ship arrived from Granville, and this was the commencement of a constant traffic of ships carrying men and material to and from Jersey. Films arrived on the 14th, and postal communication with Guernsey was restored. On the 16th the German Commandant allowed listening in to all stations. On the 17th the German Island Harbour Commandant took over the Harbour Control at the Entry Dues Office; this was later transferred to the Pomme d'Or Hotel.

The Deutsche Inselzeitung was first published on the 22nd July under the editorship of Dr. H. Kindt. It was a daily paper, in German, printed at the office of the Evening Post for the use of the troops in the Island.

The States ordered a census of the population to taken; this was carried out on the 10th August, 1940 and resulted in a total of 41,101.

Capt. Gussek remained in the Island until the 19th September, 1940, when he left for service elsewhere. He was a very successful officer, and earned the respect the inhabitants. He resided at Government House. His civil duties were 'taken over by the Field Command 515, which arrived on the 9th August, 1940. His military duties were taken over by Prince Zu Waldeck, who resided at Thornton Hall. On the 27th September, 1940, Graf von Schmettow was appointed Commander of the Fortress of Jersey, with his office at "Monaco", St. Saviour's Road, transferred later to the Metropole Hotel: Roseville Street : he resided at Government House.

On 23rd July, 1941, the office at the Town Hall was transferred to the Terminus Hotel, Weighbridge, and became the Standortkommandantur, responsible for the billeting of the troops. The troops on their arrival were directed to their billets by the Standortkommandant.

Links
(1) http://www.jerseyheritage.org/templates/jerseyheritage/occupation_memorial/historybook/occupationhistorychapter2.pdf
(2) http://www.jerseylaw.je/Publications/jerseylawreview/feb04/JLR0402_Miscellany.aspx

RIP: Bob Tilling

'A great deal of my work is based on the landscape and still life which is composed by a process of imaginative reconstruction in which both observation and memory play important parts.' - Robert Tilling

Death don't have no mercy in this land
Death don't have no mercy in this land
He'll come to your house and he won't stay long
You'll look in the bed and somebody will be gone
Death don't have no mercy in this land
(Reverend Gary Davis)

I remember the last time I saw Bob Tilling. It was at the Art Centre, and he was introducing one of the acts he had arranged to come over to Jersey. It may have been folk musician Vin Garbut, or the African band Kasai Masai. I remember that in his introduction, he said that it had been suggested to him that he look to acts that the people of Jersey would like, but he said he didn't work like that; he didn't look for what might be considered populist, but looked for acts he liked, and hoped that other people would like those too, and agree with his judgment. Going by the pretty full theatre at the Art Centre that night, he was right to do so.

He has just died, and the BBC had this notice on their website:

Tributes have been paid to well-known Jersey-based artist Robert Tilling, who has died after a long battle with cancer. Mr Tilling, 67, was the only Royal Institute artist in Jersey. He came to the island in 1968 as the new head of art at Victoria College. Mr Tilling was asked to design the Queen's menu when she visited the island. in 2001 and championed the local artistic community. His life was not all about art, he was a keen musician and family man. (1)

I remember him, too, at Victoria College. He had only recently started at Victoria College when I came to the school, and was both head of art, and head of my form. Back then, of course, he didn't have the beard that would become his later trademark. He was always keen to nurture the interest of all the pupils in art, and not just those who were particularly proficient, he didn't play favourites. He had the idea of working on a project, which curiously was something to do with death-watch beetles, in tandem with the music teacher. Perhaps the idea was that the pictures could imaginatively represent the beetle, or its effects, while the music could supply a tonal portrait of the beetle's distinctive noise. My own artistic efforts, were alas, of little merit, for while I could draw cartoons with sharp outlines quite proficiently, the softer edges of the natural world never quite turned out right. I seem to remember my "death watch beetle" looking not unlike one of the numskulls - the little creatures inside Ed's head - from "The Beano"

Victoria College was, I think, very fortunate to have a practicing artist, someone who produced work good enough to sell, and was not just an academic, but someone who was recognised and whose work was sought outside the narrow confines of a school. Incidentally, at College, all students of A level art used to get grade A over a period of many years, so he was a very successful teacher too.

His time at Victoria College came to a close nearly thirty years later, in 1997, when at the age of 53, he decided to focus on his art work and his various exhibitions. He was, by then, very well known, and in 2001 he was commissioned by the States of Jersey to paint a watercolour which would appear in the menu of the official lunch given when the Queen visited Jersey. He was appointed an M.B.E. in 2006.

There is a summary of his career on various websites. Here are a few:

Robert was born in Bristol in 1944 and went on to study Architecture and Art Education in 1961, on graduating he began his career as Head of Art at the Victoria College, Jersey during which he also lectured at the Tate Gallery, became a major prize winner at the International Drawing Biennale, Cleveland, was awarded a prize for the Most Outstanding Work by a Member at the R.I. Annual Exhibition and was elected a Member of the Royal Institute.

Robert Tilling has illustrated work for, among others, Charles Causley, Spike Milligan and his paintings have appeared in over thirty books and magazines. His jazz, blues journalism has been widely published for over thirty years and he has appeared at many blues festivals as a guitarist.(2)

Robert Tilling has lived in Jersey since 1968 and has held thirty solo exhibitions, including Exeter University and the Barbican Centre, London. His work has been selected for many mixed exhibitions including the Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition, the Royal West of England Academy and the Contemporary Arts Society. He has gained a number of awards including the Cleveland Drawing Biennale and two at the Royal Institute of Painters in Water Colours for 'the most outstanding work'.(3)

But perhaps while most local tributes will focus on his art work, he was also internationally known as a journalist, writer and player of jazz and blues music.

The International Guitar Seminars (IGS) began at Columbia University in New York City, and Robert Tilling was very much part of the team. He is listed among the teachers, and here are a few comments on his work at those seminars:

Individually I'd like to thank The Tillings for their generous spirit and desire to make everyone feel at home, in touch and appreciated. Bob's jokes are awful but the spirit burns bright

Bob for his energy, creativity and general merrymaking. A true entertainer and show person. Should that I gain 10% of the power of his playing

Advice from Bob Tilling on playing: "Be patient with your progress."(4)

The site also list him as "Guitar Teacher for IGS Acoustic Blues Guitar" and notes that:

Robert Tilling is a prolific journalist and writer whose reviews and essays have been published on both sides of the Atlantic. He has lectured widely at universities and festivals on the history of blues and has given many workshops on early acoustic blues styles and techniques at major European blues festivals. His enthusiasm for teaching and his relaxed guitar style is always a winner with students(4)

Bob wrote for Blueprint Magazine., Blues Review, Blues in Britain, Blues & Rhythm and many other journals. Here is an example of one of his reviews on Rick Payne, which gives, I think, something of the feel of his writing:

I was fortunate to see Payne perform a couple of years ago at the, sadly now no longer, Stroud Blues and Beyond Festival where I greatly enjoyed his natural and relaxed stage presence. This eleven track solo instrumental outing illustrates all of Payne's often highly complex, guitar skills and although not all the titles are blues based there is enough blues material to hold your attention.

On the opening title 'Shuffle' Payne pays tribute to one of his all time favourite guitar players Big Bill Broonzy where he captures much of the great man's swing and syncopation. There are two very enjoyable ragtime titles, 'Winston's Rag' and 'Halloween Rag', where he has a very distinctive touch and swings along at an infectious pace.

Among Payne's many talents, including guitar teaching, he has written a number of film scores and has included three beautiful examples here. I particularly enjoyed 'John Doe' [ a theme composed for the film John Doe And the Anti by LA film maker Jeremy Rushbear], where his guitar slide style does suggest a little of the work of Ry cooder, another of his favourite players, but this atmospheric title is very much his own.

I particularly enjoyed the two beautifully crafted titles 'Prelude' and 'Ramble' and although not blues their evocative melodies fitted comfortably alongside the more bluesy material. There is some creative mixing, often where he performs as a duet adding greatly to the enjoyment of this well produced disc. This is a very relaxed and entertaining set from a guitar player who really knows what he's doing and with confidence and sincerity.(5)

Perhaps his longest legacy in the music scene will come from his his enthusiasm for the work of the Reverend Gary Davis, which started during the early sixties:

Reverend Gary Davis was a towering figure in at least two realms. As a finger-style guitarist he developed a complex yet swinging approach to picking that has influenced generations of players, including Jerry Garcia, Ry Cooder, Dave Van Ronk, Jorma Kaukonen and Stefan Grossman. And as a composer of religious and secular music he created a substantial body of work that has been recorded by, among others, Bob Dylan, Jackson Browne, Peter Paul & Mary and the Grateful Dead, not to mention Davis's own releases. Eventually he toured in Britain, as well, where critic Robert Tilling, writing in Jazz Journal, called him "One of the finest gospel, blues, ragtime guitarists and singers.(6)

His preoccupation with Davis led to a book, entitled "Oh! What a Beautiful City: A Tribute To Rev. Gary Davis 1896-1972", published in 1992, which was a 124 page glossy paperback. It was self-published, and a labour of love. Writing in Blues & Rhythm 78, April 1993, Alan Balfour commented that this was not a standard kind of biography but a "kaleidoscope of images":

Rotating around a host of black and white photographs (spanning 1952 to 1972) the reader is presented with a biographical chronology, colourful anecdotes from fellow musicians and record producers (John Townley's recollections are fascinating), concert reviews (favourable and otherwise), selected record reviews, obituaries and a discography. This inventive approach brings to the page a vividness of character that standard format biographies can often fail to achieve.

Thus, via Tilling, we learn from others that Gary Davis was by turns a switch-blade-carrying street musician, a compassionate man of God (braving a white's only hospital ward to preach over the dying Woody Guthrie) as well as a guitarist with the ability to 'teach a slug to use silverware' (to quote a former pupil of Davis). The all pervasive impression created by Tilling with his use of this material is that, although the book is about a guitar playing gospel singer whose name happens be Gary Davis, it is the story of a 'universal human being' (to paraphrase Buffy St. Marie) for whom the word 'humility' was probably invented.(7)

It is perhaps fitting to end this tribute with a few lines from Gary Davis, and I can imagine him and Bob now jamming away at an eternal blues session. The music goes on. And Bob Tilling will be sadly missed.

One of these mornings and it won't be long
I saw the light from heaven come down
You gonna look for me and I'll be gone
I saw the light from heaven come down
I saw the light, Lord, I saw the light, Lord
I saw the light, Lord
I saw the light from heaven come down
(Rev Gary Davis)


Links
(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-12281296
(2) http://myfj.je/favourites/item.php?cat=artist&item=373
(3) http://www.thisisjersey.co.uk/art/roberttilling/index.html
(4) http://www.guitarseminars.com/Faculty/RobertTilling.htm
(5) http://www.rickpayne.co.uk/review_by_bob_tilling_in_blues_i.htm
(6) http://www.reverendgarydavis.com/bio.html
(7) http://goldfishfindingyourway.blogspot.com/2010/09/robert-tilling.html

Trust in Science

Nothing is more characteristic of a dogmatist epistemology than its theory of error. For if some truths are manifest, one must explain how anyone can be mistaken about them, in other words, why the truths are not manifest to everybody. According to its particular theory of error, each dogmatist epistemology offers its particular therapeutics to purge minds from error. (Imre Lakatos)

If no exception occur from phenomena, the conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any exception should occur, it may then begin to be pronounced with such exceptions as occur.(Isaac Newton)

When the physicists started to talk about "electricity," or the physicians about "contagion," these terms were vague, obscure, muddled. The terms that the scientists use today, such as "electric charge," "electric current," "fungus infection," "virus infection," are incomparably clearer and more definite. Yet what a tremendous amount of observation, how many ingenious experiments lie between the two terminologies, and some great discoveries too. - Polya [1954] v.1p.55 -p.95

I watched "Horizon: Science Under Attack" last night, in which Nobel prize winner Sir Paul Nurse went on a journey to find out why science appears to be under attack.

Geneticist and biologist Paul Nurse examines the reasons why public trust in key scientific theories, including the cause of global warming, the safety of GM food and the link between HIV and Aids, seems to have been eroded. He travels to New York to interview scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and meets a man who has HIV but does not believe the virus is responsible for Aids.

We knew that Nurse was a Nobel Prize winner because he told us. And a president of the Royal Society. And throughout the programme, the pedigree of various scientists was elucidated, to give us confidence. But this style of presentation was deeply inimical to Nurse's focus on "the facts" that really mattered. It was really little more than the "men in white lab coats" of countless advertisements on television in the 1960s and 1970s; it was the argument from authority, scientists giving pronouncements, couched in modern terms. It reminded me most of what Orwell noted in his essay on the shape of the earth:

Much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramus as soon as he strays away from his own specialty?

Here are a few of Nurse's arguments, and why I disagree with them.

a) Climate Change Deniers are involved in cherry picking data

"You cannot ignore the greater body of evidence in favour of something you would prefer to be true" said Nurse. But it is equally true that you cannot ignore the smaller body of evidence in favour of a greater picture into which it doesn't fit. In other words, there has to be some contradictory data, some exceptions, for the climate change deniers to focus on, and this is marginalised.

What seems to happen is that these exceptions are eliminated by what the philosopher Imre Lakatos termed "piecemeal exclusions", which is the mirror image of cherry picking.

Nurse had an analogies of a garden, and he said science (unlike deniers) say "look at the whole picture", but what he didn't really come to grips with was how are exclusions are dealt with - are they treated as seriously as they should.

In fact, when it came to deniers, he more or less argued that this was a psychological stance, they had a fixed idea, and just looked for evidence of that. He argued that science looks for refutations, yet gave no examples of how this was done with climate change. Instead he just produced pictures and talked to people who produced plenty of supportive facts, and told us how the models were improving all the time, but gave no indication of what would disprove their case.

There was a wonderful Nasa globe, in which real weather patterns could be matched with the mathematical model, and you could see visually how the model was improving all the time. This would be even more convincing if it had the ability to predict the weather, and for example, warn the Australians of the imminent danger of flooding. After all, a theory is only as good as its testing, as Nurse told us repeatedly. I suspect the Nasa models are very weak when it comes to future weather patterns, but very good in real time or retrospectively, which is more or less what we have with weather forecasting today, when we are told why a weather pattern has occurred, but not why the predictions failed (as anyone reading the papers will note).

There was a contradiction between his formal expression of science (as a Karl Popper style program of testing to destruction) and what he was actually presenting to support his case. He virtually came out with a Popper methodology - we test our most cherished science and try to refute it:

At the next step our tentative solution is discussed; everybody tries to find a flaw in it and to refute it.[producing] a competitive struggle which eliminates those hypotheses which are unfit. From the amoeba to Einstein, the growth of knowledge is always the same; we try to solve our problems, and to obtain, by a process of elimination, something approaching adequacy in our tentative solutions (Karl Popper)

In fact Popper often confused his own logic of scientific discovery with the practice of scientific discovery, as philosopher Mary Midgeley noted:

As we know, this is not really the way in which infant ideas get reared. From their first germination, they normally grow in public, in the common soil of the community. They occur to somebody, who mentions them, and they begin to be talked about. Their growth becomes possible because of shifts in the general climate of thought, and is fostered by half-conscious contributions from many sources for a long time before any one person thinks them out explicitly....People who get interested in them usually want to share them with others, and that fertile sharing is the main source of their further development. Of course elimination plays its part in discriminating among various emerging possibilities. But the main work of developing them is the positive, constructive, imaginative process of building them and thinking out better ways to use them, and this work is normally best carried on co-operatively, among circles of friends and acquaintances.

In fact, despite what Nurse was saying, he neither gave no examples of how scientists committed to climate change are trying to refute their own hypothesis, but on the contrary, provided lots of shots of scientists telling us that climate change was undeniable because of the "facts", which were presented in superficial glossy Horizon way. It was an opportunity missed.

There was no real consideration of the logic of refutations, which is no doubt why Nurse cannot understand how people don't accept his position when the evidence is so clear-cut. This is a sketchy approach (based on Lakatos) that I would consider to understanding the problems involved; it is probably a simplification, but I think it is more realistic than the Popperan approach suggested but not practiced here.

If a "proof" of a conjectures - such as climate change - can be broken down into subconjectures which support the main conjecture, then we may have a global counterexample, which contradicts all the subconjectures, or a local counterexample which contradicts a smaller subconjecture, but does not completely overturn the main conjecture. But that may mean that several supporting subconjectures are in fact false, or are not giving the complete picture.

Unless we can see this process clearly at work, and the weaknesses of the cases of exceptions (which may not matter, and we need to explain why), the production of exemptions will simply suggest that climate change scientists, as much as deniers, are shutting their eyes to what they don't want to see. That, I think, is the public perception, and why climate change science is so much under attack.

b) Look at all the evidence, science is evidence based.

This was Paul Nurse's other argument - we can see how the data is used, there are peer reviewed scientific journals, and scientific evidence is there, open to scrutiny by anyone who doubts.

Yet then he goes on to speak to the scientist at the centre of the "climategate" affair who complains about being bombarded with freedom of information requests for his supporting data. And the scientist in question says this is evidence of a conspiracy against him, not that he should have put all his data out into the public domain anyway!!

Even Paul Nurse realised there was a contradiction here, and said that the model way of doing things should be the Human Genome Project. Unfortunately the human element of science, namely staking a claim to fame by priority, still counts for a good deal.

"Scientists have got to get out there. They have to be open about what they do ... even if it does put their reputation in doubt", he said. Keeping evidence back from public view suggests that what does get on display may be selective, it certainly fuels suspicions, and rather than Nurse talking to camera about a more open public access to science and data, he didn't question the climategate scientist at all about keeping his data to himself, and why that somehow legitimate. Instead he seemed to almost let that slip by.

c) Cherry Picking

Paul Nurse cited selective use of evidence, and yet when it came to GM crops, there was an appalling amount of cherry picking in his presentation. For example, on GM foods, he said "of course they contained genes, everything does", suggesting that the public were somehow ignorant of this basic fact. This was patronising and completely untrue; it was a a gross oversimplification of the issues at stake. Somehow he forgot to mention:

1) gene splicing (such as introducing scorpion genes into vegetables) rather than selective propagation is one cause of concern, as no one has any idea about alien genes and long term side effects of these in the food chain.

2) GM crops are produced not just to be resistant to blight (his example of "good GM"), but also resistant to extremely strong pesticides, regardless of the environmental hazard to the ecosystem that produces

3) terminator seeds, are manufactured, which are designed not to be able to be propagated, so that the manufacturer retains a monopolistic control of the food chain.

"Trust no-one. Trust only what the experiment and the data tell you. We have to continue to use that approach if we are to solve problems such as climate change." said Nurse. If his presentation on GM crops is anything to go by, no one is likely to trust him on climate change.

He also provided his "killer question" -

Suppose you were ill with cancer would you wish to be treated by "consensus" medicine or something from the quack fringe? (Paul Nurse)

what he is in fact providing is a medical version of Pascal's wager, and it overlooks the fact that while most people will opt for "consensus medicine", it may still kill them.

Going back to the issue of hygiene and the work of Semmelweis, the "consensus medical practice" for doctors was (in the 19th century) not to practice strict hygiene and as a result were killing women by infecting them in childbirth. Semmelweis noted this and proved that these infections could be stopped with effective hygiene. He was hounded out by the "consensus".

Oxygen supplied to premature babies (as best consensus) caused blindness.

Thalidomide enjoyed a wide spread "consensus" among the medical profession that it was a safe and effective treatment for morning sickness in pregnant women.

It wasn't so long ago that the medical consensus was that stomach ulcers were caused by worry rather than helicobacter pylori.

I'm not saying one shouldn't seek medical advice rather than "quack medicine", but just that by overlooking the flaws in consensus medicine along the way (and I'm not going to start on psychiatry), Nurse is painting a much rosier picture than he should. You may have "consensus medicine" for cancer, but you may well die anyway. Either / or is simplistic - most people will go for both "consensus" medicine, and unorthodox treatments.

"I think today there is a new kind of battle. It's not just about ideas but whether people actually trust science... Science has created our modern world so I would like to understand why scientists are under such attack and whether scientists are partly to blame," Sir Paul said.

Overall my son was unimpressed. Why couldn't he show us the whole email in Climategate about ""Mike's Nature trick" rather than telling us what it meant? Why did they just show nice graphics, and not give much in the way of solid data? That, of course, is why he hates most Horizons nowadays, which eschew real science for glossy visuals, and dumbing down.

If you treat people like idiots, people won't trust you - that is more or less why people don't trust scientists like Paul Nurse. Watching the Horizon, I suspect he will have alienated more people than he won over to his point of view. And he will have been partly to blame.

Jersey Misinformation on Donkipedia

I've been looking at the Donkipedia page on witch trials in the Channel Islands and there is a lot of misinformation. Heaven help anyone using this page as a serious historical reference!

For instance;

Witchcraft

"Witchcraft was widespread in Jersey in the 16th and 17th centuries, as it was elsewhere in Europe."

That should read "belief in witchcraft". There is no evidence that witchcraft was actually present in the "classic" form which we find in Margaret Murray of groups meeting in covens of 13, celebrating "black masses". No one ever came across any witches participating in any such event, outside of later folk tales such as those relating to Rocqueberg. If the authorities had known that such as place was a known haunt of witches, as is supposed to be the case, they would almost have certainly gathered evidence or caught miscreants in the act.

Pagan Gods

"Pagan gods, who formed no part of the Christian faith, were worshipped as devils. There was such a fear of these devil worshipers that for the well-being of the community it was considered important to seek out and destroy them. "

There is no documentary evidence that there was a belief in devil worship in Jersey; there is no evidence at all - despite Balleine's speculation (largely based on Margaret Murray) - of any worship of pagan gods in Jersey around the time of the witch trials.

The nearest to any pagan worship would be the placing of votive offerings for good luck, such as at the Gran Mere in Guernsey. There is no evidence that this was more than folk belief and custom rather than any organised pagan cult, much as people "touch wood" or see omens in numbers of magpies seen even nowadays. Does everyone who counts magpies, or touches wood, or doesn't walk under ladders count as a pagan worshipper? I think not. Even if there were survivals - like votive offerings at sites - this doesn't mean that it was pagan worship. Traditions of folk magic, divination and, herbalism persist today, but are not part of cohesive belief systems such as we find in the ancient world.

A modern example would be bonfire night - very popular, and the tales of Guy Fawkes are still told, but it is nowadays hardly a hate-fest of Protestants against Catholics; it is just an excuse to have a fire festival and fun. Most of those attending probably do not have any strong religious beliefs of any sort.

The late Issac Bonewits comments (with wry humour):

Sure the medieval peasants went out into the woods and held orgies, sure they built need-fires at certain times of the year, sure they followed the agricultural customs of their ancestors --- anyone who's read Frazer's Golden Bough knows that. None of this activity necessarily proves that they had any idea, magically or religiously, of what they were doing. This is why outside observers must always be making stupid remarks like "the peasants really did this because..." or "they didn't know it, but they were actually worshipping an old Pagan god named Irving, who was..."

You do not need a religious or magical reason to perform customary or enjoyable acts. The mere fact that "this is the way my Grandfather did it" or that, "actually, I've always rather enjoyed orgies," is more than sufficient to assure that some form or other of that act will be perpetuated in the future. After all, in magic and religion, as in many other fields, one does not always have to consciously understand what one is doing in order to get results (though it helps). Just because a group of peasants is performing a ritual of possible magical efficacy, does not mean that they have had someone train them in the art of magic, or that they have the slightest idea of what they are doing.

Ordeals

Donkipedia notes that:

In Jersey, disputes were settled by 'The Judgement of God' and trials were by Cross, Water and Fire. In the first, the litigants were made to stand in a position resembling the cross, with their arms outstretched. Whoever stayed in this position the longest must have right on their side because, as we all know, God looks after his own. The second trial - by water - really does fall into the category of cruel and devious. A heavy weight was placed at the bottom of a cauldron of water, which was then brought to boiling point. The accused was made to plunge their hand in the cauldron to retrieve the weight and then carry it for a distance of nine feet. Their hand was then wrapped and sealed and had to remain like this for 3 nights. If, after this time, the hand was healthy, he would be judged to be innocent. If it showed signs of scalding, then it proved his guilt. The trial by fire was the same, except that here the accused had to carry a red hot iron for nine feet before having his hand bandaged.

The source for this appears to be verbatim from http://www.jaynesjersey.com/witchcraft.htm

No source is given on that site. None of the legal material which I have studied (the Mirror of Justice etc) gives any evidence for this kind of trial, nor do any of the cases (as reported in Balleine or Pitts). The actual trials involved imprisonment in Gorey Castle, and repeated interrogation before the lesser court. The legal procedure for all cases was as follows. The accused was first indicted before the Cour de Cattel and asked to submit his case to the "Grand Enquete du Pays" which had the ability to condemn them to death. Incidentally, the Cour de Cattel was abolished in 1862, and with it, the extant procedural rules for witch trials.

Physical torture as such is not evidenced - Guernsey had thumbscrews but the Jersey records don't mention this, although shaving for witches marks would have been humiliating and degrading - look at treatment of prisoners in Iraq by Americans - and months in the cold damp dungeons on a starvation diet of bread and water, without any idea what would happen next, would have also applied considerable duress. It would be considered torture by today's standards.

The only trial by ordeal mentioned in the earliest legal records for sorcery (not witchcraft as such) is by casting the victim from a high cliff, which suggests a possible basis for the Geoffrey's leap story, which is possibly a garbled account based on such a trial.

I sincerely hope the Donkipedia site is adjusted to provide better documented information, rather than speculative "facts". Elsewhere the site is very good - it's just here that it falls down badly.

Links
http://www.guernsey-society.org.uk/donkipedia/index.php5?title=Witchcraft
http://www.spiritualitea.com/articles/briefhistory.shtml
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/witch-trials-in-jersey-and-guernsey/12656704

Lionel Logue and the King's Speech

O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue (Ex 4:10)

Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. (Ex 4:12)

And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. (Isa 32:3,4)

This familiar instance reaffirms the Scriptural word concerning a man, "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he." If one believes that he cannot be an orator without study or a superinduced condition, the body responds to this belief, and the tongue grows mute which before was eloquent. (Science and Health 89)

The "King's Speech" is a wonderful film about the relationship between the Duke of York, later King George VI, and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue. Colin Firth is marvelous as the Duke of York, while Geoffrey Rush is believable as the somewhat oddball speech therapist from Australia, with a record of successes in curing speech defects. The film also plays out against the death of George V, the Abdication Crisis, the Coronation, and the impinging threat of war with Germany.

However, as Professor Cathy Schultz has pointed out, the relationship began in 1926, when Logue started working to help the Duke overcome a debilitating stammer. This was ten years before the abdication crisis, when Logue meets the Duke in the film, so there is a degree of dramatic license in compressing events into a shorter space of time than was actually the case.

The film appears to take place over just a few years, culminating in the King's speech in September 1939, at the outbreak of World War II. But Logue actually began treating the Duke of York in 1926. Bertie was a model pupil, and practiced Logue's prescribed vocalization exercises so diligently that within a few years his confidence and speech delivery improved dramatically, and he effectively ended his sessions with Logue. By the early 1930s, in fact, the Duke was visiting Logue's office only rarely, and the two kept in infrequent contact through letters. But when Bertie unexpectedly ascended to the throne (after his elder brother, King Edward VIII, abdicated in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, the twice-divorced American) he once again sought out Logue's help. So the film is correct in showing Logue working closely with King George through his coronation speech, as well as assisting him in many of the significant speeches that followed. (1)

Nonetheless, the part of Logue is certainly based on convincing documentation. Only nine weeks before filming, the diaries of Lionel Logue were discovered and the screenplay was rewritten to incorporate this new material. Part of the film also deals with one of the other methods recommended by other physicians, where the Duke is forced to take marbles in the mouth and attempt to speak at the same time:
 
The marbles "therapy" originated with Demosthenes, and continued to be used into the 20th century. The idea was that marbles (or pebbles - Demosthenes' original suggestion) stuffed into the mouth caused stutterers to speak slowly and carefully, in order to avoid swallowing the marbles. Clearly lawsuits were not an issue in Demosthenes' day. (2)

Logue was born in 1880 to a wealthy middle class family and privilege. He was the grandson of Edward Logue, a Dublin publican who owned the Kent Town Brewery with Sir Edwin Smith. In Adelaide, Logue studied elocution with Edward Reeves, "who purged his voice of much of its Australian accent" - the idea in the film that he is rejected by a London dramatic society for his accent is therefore doubtful.

Logue was a Christian Scientist and was passionate about healing, and although not much is made of his Christian Science in the film, it is probably that this was a determining factor in wanting to reach out and help those who needed healing, using the abilities that he had developed over the years:

perhaps this, coupled with his background in elocution, lead to a role he assumed in Perth during World War I (1914-1918) when he treated returned servicemen who had speech disorders attributed to shell shock.  Edgar (in Ritchie, 2000) writes, "Using humour, patience and 'super-human sympathy' he taught them exercises for the lungs and diaphragm, and to breathe sufficiently deeply to complete a sentence fluently". Logue's approach included the recitation of tongue twisters such as, "She sifted seven thick stalked thistles through a strong, thick sieve." ( Denis Judd, King George VI, in Langford, p.472).(3)

The Christian Science connection, although not mentioned in the film, and clearly not prominent - Logue seems to have been a very reticent individual with regard to his private and family life, nevertheless was there. In 1996 Lionel Logue's son Valentine wrote a letter confirming that his father was indeed a Christian Scientist. Most recently, the biography by Norman Hutchinson's biography also records the author's own childhood memories of Logue being talked about as a Christian Scientist when he was growing up in Perth. However, while Christian Science may have informed his therapy, it seems likely that he addressed psychological trauma rather that the spiritual factors more prominent Christian Science as practiced. (9)

What also comes through his personal history is his compassionate nature, both in helping the returned servicemen, in the act of kindness to his sister with financial help, and with the way he arranged his finances in England, taking enough money from richer patients both to support his family, but also so that he could help poorer patients at reduced cost:

Despite never returning to Australia, Logue kept close ties with his family in Adelaide, particularly his sister, Eveline May, who had a messy divorce played out in the Supreme Court after she moved to severe ties with her abusive and adulterous husband in 1907. "He was in touch with them," Mark said. . "He financed his sister regularly with a maintenance allowance of £5 a month to pay her mortgage.(3)

Logue practiced at 146 Harley Street, London, from 1924: the fees paid by his wealthy clients enabled him to accept poorer patients without charge. (4)

In 1924 Logue commenced practice at 146 Harley Street, London. He made a good living, charging wealthy patrons substantial fees while providing a free service to poorer people who sought his professional help. (1)

Although Logue had no formal qualifications, and in fact there were none in the nature of his work in Australia, he never pretended that he had any fraudulent certification, but just let his work and experience speak for itself. In many ways, he carved out a new profession where there had been none before.

Logue was a founder, in 1935, of the British Society of Speech Therapists, and in 1944 became a founding fellow of the College of Speech Therapists (now called the RCSLT). The College was granted royal patronage by George VI (in 1948, according to Eldridge, 1968. (1)

What the film portrays, but what we don't quite know, was how Logue actually worked. We have elements on the periphery, but Logue founded no school, and his relationships with his patients were confidential, so we know very little:

Suzanne Edgar, in Volume 15 of the Australian Dictionary of Biography, provides the most detailed account of Logue's diagnosis and treatment, and the duke's response. "The therapist diagnosed poor coordination between  larynx and diaphragm, and asked him to spend an hour each day practicing rigorous exercises. The duke came to his rooms, stood by an open window and loudly intoned each vowel for fifteen seconds. Logue restored his confidence by relaxing the tension which caused muscle spasms. The duke's stammer diminished to occasional hesitations.... Using tongue twisters, Logue helped the duke rehearse for major speeches and coached him for the formal language of his coronation in 1937. At Westminster Abbey on 12th May, wearing the M.V.O. decoration given to him by King George VI on the previous night, Logue sat in the apse to encourage him during the ceremony. Before the King's radio broadcast that evening, Logue whispered to him: "Now take it quietly Sir".(4)

We know that he often opened a window, and used various tongue twisters, and breathing techniques, but it also seems possible that he sought - as with the war wounded soldiers - some kind of therapy on the trauma. Dr Caroline Bowen, a Blue Mountains speech and language pathologist, notes how surprisingly little that is known about him. In contrast to the film, where we see inside the sessions between Logue and the Duke, no one one really knows what his methods were. She notes that there have been many conflicting reports and theories but he wrote nothing down, and the secret of his techniques died with him:
 
The fact of the matter is that we do not have verifiable records of what his intervention methods for stuttering (stammering) were. He did not publish the details of his approach, there are no case notes to peruse, no theoretical musings over why he did what he did and no evidence that he undertook any form of study or research to support his endeavour. Logue & Conrad (2010, p. 132) quote him, without specifying the precise source, as saying, ".unfortunately on the matter of Speech Defects, when so much depends on the temperament and individuality, a case can always be produced that can prove you are wrong. That is why I won't write a book."(1)

While his diaries reveal important insights into his friendship and support for the Duke, and the frequency of the sessions, and where he was present to provide support on State occasions (such as the Coronation), they don't give anything away about how he worked. We do know that(as Norman C Hutchinson notes) that he called his patients "his pupils" rather than patients, suggesting a teacher relationship rather than a doctor relationship.

Mark Logue told the Herald this week that nothing in the diaries sheds new light on his grandfather's methods. ''Whatever it was that he did with the king, or indeed with his other patients, he didn't pass it on, because he had no students and didn't leave any records,'' he said. ''In fact, he may not even have been administering speech therapy in the accepted sense but instead a combination of psychotherapy and dialogue coaching.''(6)

Lionel Logue's methods, as depicted in the movie are, as far as we know, largely artistic license. Logue's diaries are vague about his actual therapy methods. We know that he treated soldiers returning from the trenches who were suffering from mutism due to shell-shock. This gave him an appreciation for the psychological aspects of communication, something we believe he put to good use in his therapy. Logue had no specific training as a therapist - he was an innovator, working before modern stammering therapy had been developed. (8)

Caroline Bowen has her own ideas about why Logue's methods worked:

Why did Lionel Logue's methods work? From the little evidence we have I believe that his confidence, his empathy with his clients, and his understanding of the profoundly traumatic nature of a serious  impediment to communication, combined with techniques to reduce  inappropriate muscle tension and respiratory patterns, and to demonstrate to patients that there were many ways of producing fluent speech were all important.

The film also highlights how debilitating a stammer can be. The British stammering association (BSA) welcomes the film and says the production is "to be congratulated on their realistic depiction of the frustration and the fear of speaking faced by people who stammer on a daily basis. Colin Firth's portrayal of the King's stammer in particular strikes us as very authentic and accurate (see also BSA's interview with Colin Firth)."

They also note that:

The film offers a golden opportunity to talk openly about stammering. Too often, stammering is treated as embarrassing and shameful, something that may not be talked about in polite company. BSA profoundly disagrees with this view and we welcome the opportunity for more openness around this potentially serious communication disability.

There are about 720,000 adults and children in the UK who stammer. Early intervention as soon as possible after onset around the age of 3 years has been shown to be very effective in terms of complete recovery of fluent speech; intervention at school-age or even later offers the benefit of ameliorating the symptoms and the often severe psychological, social, educational and economic impact that stammering can have.

The film is very clear that the King is neither 'cured' nor does he 'overcome' his stammer. Colin Firth, in an interview with the BSA, states that to show the King as having been cured would have been 'a lie'. Rather, he says, the King is shown to 'come to an arrangement' with his stammer.

It is a film that is both moving and surprisingly (but intentionally) funny in places, and I would thoroughly recommend it. The message that comes across to anyone who has to overcome personal odds is that of Logue, when he tells the future King: ""I'm trying to get you to realise that you can't be governed by fear."

King's aide dies London, Sunday The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848-1954) Monday 13 April 1953 p 8 Article ... King's aide dies London, Sunday Lionel Logue, Australian- born specialist in speech defects, who helped King George VI overcome his stammer; died in London to- day, aged 72.

 

Links
(1) http://members.tripod.com/caroline_bowen/ll.htm
(2) http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertainment/uncovered-lionel-logues-life-in-sa/story-e6fredpu-1225984262361
(3) http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertainment/uncovered-lionel-logues-life-in-sa/story-e6fredpu-1225984262361
(4) http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A150145b.htm
(5) http://members.tripod.com/caroline_bowen/ll.htm
(6) http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/kings-voice-coach-calmed-a-nation-20101109-17m2x.html
(7) http://www.speech-language-therapy.com/mrp_logue.htm
(8) http://www.stammering.org/kspoints.html
(9) http://kaystroud.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/the-kings-speech-lionel-logue-and-the-christian-science-question/
(10) Letter to Ms Suzanne Edgar, Research Editor, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University.
Edgar, S. (2000). Logue, Lionel George (1880-1953).

God's President: Mugabe of Zimbabwe

"We know the size of the world we know the total extent. Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses." (Cecil Rhodes, "Confession of Faith", 1877)

I've just been catching up on my listening, and have heard the excellent play "God's President: Mugabe of Zimbabwe", which was broadcast in early December. It was a Friday Play specially commissioned by Radio 4 to mark the 30th anniversary year of the Independence of Zimbabwe:

Kwame Kwei-Armah's play tells the story of the tense negotiations around the Lancaster House Conference, and the road to Zimbabwe's Independence.

On 4th March 1980 the Shona majority in Rhodesia was decisive in electing Robert Mugabe to head the first post-independence government as Prime Minister. Six weeks later, on April 18th, Zimbabwe celebrated its first Independence Day. On the 21st December 1979, following three months of talks, the Lancaster House Agreement finally brought independence to Rhodesia following Ian Smith's Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965. Margaret Thatcher's government had invited Bishop Muzorewa and Ian Smith, and the leaders of the Patriotic Front, led by Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe to participate in a Constitutional Conference at Lancaster House in London, to be chaired by the foreign secretary, Lord Carrington.

The purpose of the Conference was to discuss and reach agreement on the terms of an Independence Constitution, and to ensure that elections should be supervised under British authority to enable Rhodesia to proceed to legal independence and the parties to settle their differences by political means.

Robert Mugabe....Lucian Msamati
Edgar Tekere...Danny Sapani
Bishop Muzorewa ...Chuk Iwuji
Lord Carrington ...Richard Cordery
Robin Renwick ...Tony Bell
Joshua Nkomo ...Jude Akuwudike
Ian Smith ...William Gaminara
Sir Shridath Ramphal...Kwame Kwei-Armah
Kenneth Kaunda.. .Ben Onwukwe
Bob Marley ... Lloyd Thomas
With Sean Baker, David Seddon, Alison Pettit
Directed by Jeremy Mortimer.

The play was focused on the events at Lancaster House, but also had time for flashbacks, in order to let us see the background of Robert Mugabe, and how he come from a background where he had witnessed the slaughter of men, women and children under the oppressive regime of Ian Smith. It explained why he was suspicious of Lord Carrington, and why he was so focused on releasing his people from what he saw as a paternalistic colonial regime under which they had be second class citizens. The struggle had been a violent one, and its escalation - coupled with trade sanctions by Britain against Ian Smith's government in Rhodesia impacted on the economies of neighbouring countries, so that Kenneth Kaunda of neighbouring Zambia was also putting pressure on Mugabe to resolve the situation.

The story ends with independence, and a new hope for the country, as it symbolically loses the colonial name of Rhodesia and become reborn as Zimbabwe. But, as Lord Carrington says in the play, no one knows what the future might bring. In the event, Zimbabwe moved steadily towards a dictatorial police state. In a way, the story of Mugabe coming to power, and then using the same kind of repressive apparatus as Ian Smith to maintain his power, is akin to that of a victim of child abuse, who himself grows up to be a child abuser.

How does President Robert Mugabe see himself? In 2009, he saw himself as a hero rather than a dictator:

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, in a rare interview, depicted himself as an African hero battling imperialism and foreign attempts to oust him rather than the widespread perception of a dictator clinging to power at the expense of the welfare of his people and country. The 85-year-old Mugabe, the only leader of Zimbabwe since it became independent from Britain in 1980, rejected repeated assertions by CNN's Christiane Amanpour that his policies have driven the nation once known as Africa's breadbasket to virtual economic collapse. Instead, Mugabe accused Britain and the United States of seeking to oust him by imposing economic sanctions, the effects of which he said were worsened by years of drought. He denied that his country is in economic shambles, saying it grew enough food last year to feed all its people, and defended policies that have driven white farmers off their land as properly restoring that land to indigenous Africans.

"The land reform is the best thing (that) could have ever have happened to an African country," said Mugabe, a former revolutionary leader who came to power when white-ruled Rhodesia became black-ruled Zimbabwe. "It has to do with national sovereignty."

"You don't leave power when imperialists dictate that you leave," he insisted. "There is regime change. Haven't you heard of (the) regime change program by Britain and the United States that is aimed at getting not just Robert Mugabe out of power but get Robert Mugabe and his party out of power?"(1)

Mugabe clearly still frames any criticism of his regime through the filter of "imperialist interference", and has called South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu a "little man" who "doesn't know what he's talking about". On the subject of white-owned farms, he argued that this was restoring what had been stolen by colonial rule:

"Zimbabwe belongs to the Zimbabweans, pure and simple. They [white settlers] occupied the land illegally. They seized the land from our people." "They are British settlers," he said, later calling them "citizens by colonization, seizing land from original people, indigenous people of the country."(1)

But what is indigenous? There can be no doubt that the while settlers did take over the country, and Cecil Rhodes saw it almost in terms of a divine duty. Yet the country has seen many waves of settlers, and some significant ones altered the make up of the country by also coming in and taking over from the indigenous natives of that time.

It appears that Kalanga speaking societies first emerged in the middle Limpopo valley in the 9th century before moving on to the Zimbabwean highlands. The Zimbabwean plateau eventually became the center of subsequent Kalanga states. The Mapungubwe were the first migrants to this area from South Africa. They spoke Bantu, and inhabited the Great Zimbabwe site from about AD 1000 displacing earlier Khoisan people.

These peoples settled and merged with the native population, and were first termed the Shona in the 1920s.

The Shona gradually developed gold and ivory trade with the coast, and by the mid-15th century had established a strong empire, with its capital at the ancient city of Zimbabwe. This empire, known as Munhumutapa, split by the end of the century, the southern part becoming the Urozwi Empire, which flourished for two centuries.(2)

It is from the time of the Shona empires that we get the word "zimbabwe": Zimbabwe - a word in Shona, the local Bantu language, meant literally "stone houses', and these became the characteristic dwellings of chieftains. Around 100 hilltop ruins survive, of which the most famous and impressive is the group known as Great Zimbabwe. In the 13th century this location succeeds the Mapungubwe as the main centre of Shona power.

But the most significant change came just before the colonial West made its mark on Africa, when another displaced people came and conquered. These were a tribal group of warriors and cattle-breeders - the Ndebele - who easily subdue the agricultural Shona.

In 1834, the Ndebele people arrived while fleeing from the Zulu leader Shaka, making the area their new empire, Matabeleland. In 1837-38, the Rozwi Empire along with other Shona states were conquered by the Ndebele, who arrived from south of the Limpopo and forced them to pay tribute and concentrate in northern Zimbabwe.(3)

By the time the British began arriving in the mid-19th century, the Shona people had long been subjected to slave raids. The once-powerful Urozwi Empire had been destroyed in the 1830s by the Ndebele, who, under Mzilikaze, had fled from the Zulus in South Africa.(4)

The Ndebele were, in turn, displaced by the British colonists.

After the decline of Great Zimbabwe, which had begun in the 13th century, the fragmented Shona tribes allied themselves and created the Rozwi state and encompassed over half of present day Zimbabwe. This state lasted until 1834 when it was invaded by Ndebele warriors and came under the rule of Lobengula. Lobengula soon found himself having to deal with Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company (BSAC) and signed a contract giving up mineral rights to his land in exchange for guns, ammunition and money.(5)

But it is against this background of different ethnic groups that the internal dissent between Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe can be understood:

Following independence, Zimbabwe initially made significant economic and social progress, but internal dissent became increasingly evident. The long-simmering rivalry erupted between Mugabe's dominant ZANU-Patriotic Front Party, which represented the majority Shona ethnic groups, and Nkomo's ZAPU, which had the support of the minority Ndebele.(6

Who has claim to land? What is the "native title" to land? At what point does claim to a land become "ancestral"?

Was it the Khoisan people who were displaced by the Shona?
Was it the Shona who were displaced by the Ndebele?
Was it the Ndebele who were displaced by the White Settlers?

By not really considering the problem of how to resolve land rights in a peaceful and equitable manner, the Lancaster House agreement laid up trouble for the future. Moreover, by framing the issue in terms of colonialism by Robert Mugabe, the broader nature of the question of indigenous rights is thereby avoided. But the same kind of land grab that took place after Rhodes has happened elsewhere in Africa and across the world, where tribal groups are displaced by other governments. For example, in Kenya:

Violations of land rights, including the rights of the generations of Kenyans displaced through historic and recent evictions, are one of the key unresolved issues in Kenya, which former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged in the aftermath of Kenya's electoral violence in 2007-2008

In the last decade there have been several attempts at comprehensive land reform that would allow for final and fair determination of land ownership and create a system to restore land to those unlawfully evicted or to compensate them...While the adoption by the government of a new land policy in August 2009 marks a significant step forward, it still needs to be translated into effective protection on the ground for Kenya's most marginalized.(6)

In Botswana:

Botswana's Government must step up efforts to tackle the challenges faced by many indigenous communities, such as land rights, according to a new report by a United Nations independent expert.(7)

And in Peru:

President Alan Garcia of Peru has refused to sign a law that would give indigenous people more power to stop oil and mining projects on their lands. The law was approved by Congress, but Mr Garcia said he could not let indigenous communities stop development that would benefit all Peruvians. (8)

And Nicaragua

Since the early 1990s, Awas Tingni community members had experienced increasing incursions into areas they consider to be theirs, most dramatically in the form of a government concession of logging rights to a multinational company. They pursued remedies inside Nicaragua to no avail.(9)

What is happening is that the claim of subsidiary group of peoples native to a locality is put aside in place of national interests, and this leads to conflict over the land rights. This is an issue which is gradually being resolved in by international legal judgments in favour of smaller ethnic tribal groups, where the incursions of governments are relatively recent, and the identification of the group can be particularly clear in terms of culture and genetic identity, but the problem remains, and Robert Mugabe's framing of the narrative purely in terms of colonial domination only creates a blind spot and a dead end.

Links
(1) http://zimbabweblackbook.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/mugabe-denies-blame-for-zimbabwe-woes/
(2) http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/Zimbabwe-HISTORY.html#ixzz1BWkXqJRK
(3) http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ad28
(4) http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/Zimbabwe-HISTORY.html#ixzz1BWkeaxlo
(5) http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/Zimbabwe-HISTORY.html#ixzz1BWknVqGX
(6) http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/04/kenya-landmark-ruling-indigenous-land-rights
(7) http://www.allvoices.com/news/5300180-botswana-un-turns-attention-to-indigenous-land-rights-in-country
(8) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10399962
(9) https://segue.southwestern.edu/userfiles/ANT3520301-f08/Hale%20Activist%20Research.pdf

Jersey Under the Swastika - III The Utimatum and Surrender

Continuing the occasional transcription of Ralph Mollet's account of the Occupation of Jersey, this extract takes us up to the point when the Island was occupied.

It has been a while since I've re-read any histories of the Occupation, and what I find striking in Mollet's account (though no doubt also in other accounts) is the singular lack of good communication with the Germans. The Islands had been demilitarized, but no one seems to have been able or checked that the Germans had this message. One would have thought it would be easy enough to broadcast the fact on the wireless, or to use a neutral country to get the message through.

Instead, the Jersey authorities seem to have waited for the Germans to get in touch with them, leading to bombing raids, destruction of property and loss of life. Did the Jersey government assume the British government had notified Germany? Did the British government fail to do so effectively? From other accounts, it seems that the British government decided to keep the demilitarization a secret from the German forces, and there was no enquiry as to why this omission, which seems incredibly stupid, was taken.

So when the German officials did send a message - "I intend to neutralize military establishments in Jersey by occupation" - it was clear they had no notification at all, and threatened "heavy bombardment".

Ralph Mollet's account mentions as before that "many people left to sleep in the country". Unfortunately this account is extremely sparse, and I would have liked more detail as to exactly where they went and what they did. Did they just sleep out in the open (it was, after all, summer and fine weather)? How did they get there? And how far out was considered "country"? How, in fact, does Mollet know this?

"In case of peaceful surrender; the lives, property, and liberty of peaceful inhabitants are solemnly guaranteed." said the notice. In fact, of course, there was to be a steady erosion of liberties under German rule.

---

Jersey Under The Swastika by Ralph Mollet
III THE ULTIMATUM AND SURRENDER

ON Friday the 28th June and during the two previous days German planes flew over the Island, very low at times. The shipping continued to leave with cargoes of, potatoes, and the mail steamer left as usual in the afternoon. About 6.55 p.m. on the 28th, three German planes flew over La Rocque, machine-gunning the district and dropping two 50 lb. H.E. bombs on the road near the Harbour. Mr. John Adams (an Air Raid Warden) was killed on his doorstep, whilst Mr. Thomas Pilkington and Mrs. Farrell were killed by bullets, when sitting on a form in the vicinity.

The planes flew over Samarès, firing as they went; over Havre des Pas the bullets were seen ploughing the sand on the beach ; two bombs were dropped on Mount Bingham, killing Mr. John Ph. Mauger near his house, and damaging many houses near by. Two fell on the Fort and the District Office, and others fell in the Old Harbour, setting fire to many small boats. The planes then went over the Island to St. Ouen, returning to St. Helier, machine-gunning the Albert and North Piers, dropping bombs on Commercial Buildings, setting fire to Norman's wood-stores. The furze on Fort Regent caught fire and burnt for several days. The planes, after again machine-gunning various parts of the Island, then dropped two bombs on the Yacht Hotel and two on the Pomme d'Or Hotel. Messrs. Robert Fallls, Leslie Bryan, and W. C. Moodie were killed on the piers, and Messrs. F. W. Ferrand and Wm. A. Coleman in Mulcaster Street. Many other persons were wounded and taken to the General Hospital.

Mr. Harold F. Hobbs was killed in the Guernsey life-boat when off Noirmont on its way to Jersey-

A telegram reporting the raid was sent to the Home Office ; this was the last communication sent to the British Government. Jersey was not declared " an Open Town" by the B.B.C. until three hours after the raid. Many people again left the town to sleep in the country.

On the following Saturday, -19th June, and Sunday, there were several alarms, and everyone was rather nervous and anxious as to what would happen next. All shipping had left the harbour on Friday evening; the cables to Guernsey and England were still in use.

'On the 1st July, at 5.30 a.m., planes flew low over the town and airport, dropping copies of an ultimatum. One landed in Bath Street and two at the airport. The police of St. Helier and Mr. Roche, Controller of the airport, took them at once to the Bailiff. The message was as follows :-

TRANSLATION

1st July, 1940-

To the Chief of the Military and Civil Authorities.

Jersey (St. Helier).

1. I intend to neutralize military establishments in Jersey by occupation.

2. As evidence that the Island will surrender the military and other establishments without resistance and without destroying them, a large White Cross is to be shown as follows, from 7 a.m., July 2nd, 1940.

a. In the centre of the air port in the East of the Island.
b. On the highest point of the fortifications of the port.
c. On the square to the north of the Inner Basin of the Harbour.

Moreover all fortifications, buildings, establishments and houses are to show the White Flag.

3. If these signs of peaceful surrender are not observed by 7 a.m., July 2nd, heavy bombardment will take place,

a. Against all military objects.
b. Against all establishments and objects useful for defence.

4. The signs of surrender must remain up to the time of the occupation of the Island by German troops.

5. Representatives of the Authorities must stay at the air port until the Occupation.

6. All Radio traffic and other communication with Authorities outside the Island will be considered hostile actions and will be followed by bombardment.

7. Every hostile action against my representatives will be followed by bombardment.

8. In case of peaceful surrender; the lives, property, and liberty of peaceful inhabitants are solemnly guaranteed.

The Commander of the German Air Forces in Normandy,
RICHTHOFEN,
General.

The Bailiff immediately summoned the Royal Court at 9.30 a.m., and the States to meet later. The States then made an Act to comply with the terms of the ultimatum. :--

Copies of the translation of the ultimatum were printed and posted up in all parts of the Island with the following footnote :-

"The States have ordered this Communication to be printed and posted forthwith, and charge the inhabitants to keep calm, to comply with the requirements of the Communication, and to offer no resistance whatsoever to the occupation of the Island."

Large white flags were hoisted on all public buildings, and white flags of various materials were flown from the majority of the houses, whilst white crosses were painted in the Square and at the places mentioned in the ultimatum.

Jersey with her centuries of attachment to the British Crown, was forced reluctantly to surrender to the enemy.