1769 and all that!

St Helier Constable has asked for the 1769 storming of the Royal Court on matter regarding "fair taxes on wheat, an end to cattle and provision exports, and for Constables to consult Parishioners before passing laws and regulations"(1)

But what was unfair about taxes on wheat? The JEP, reporting on the matter, doesn't say.

It was not to do with the price of bread, which is due to go up very soon because of rising wheat prices, but to do with "wheat rents". This is well explained by the Reverend Alban E Ragg, in his "Popular History of Jersey":

From very early times up to this period these had always been paid "in kind," i.e., in actual wheat, a mode allowable and useful in a small community and when very little money was in circulation, but which had become oppressive and obsolete in its working ; the fact of the matter being that the quantity of wheat then grown upon the Island was not sufficient to pay one twentieth part of the rents that had been created. Under these circumstances, as can very easily be conceived, a man might have to pay, for instance, 50 per cent. more for the purchase of the actual grain than would have sufficed for the payment of his rents in cash. This matter in the first instance was modified by paying in coin on an average value of wheat; though here again stepped in the difficulty that the holders of wheat rents, having an interest in the matter, naturally did their best to keep the average value at a high price ; those that had to pay as naturally trying to lower its average value.

The whole difficulty was, however, at last solved by an Act of the States, confirmed on April 26th, 1797, and to come into force the following Michaelmas, to the effect that such rents were to be estimated at a fixed rate, which law-the only effective measure that resulted from all the agitation of 1790 and that period -is still followed. (2)

In fact, there was also a wheat shortage driving prices up, and while today this effects bread, in 1769 it was also effecting the wheat rent. Hence it was that on 28 September 1769 up to 500 islanders marched on St. Helier from country parishes and halted the proceedings at the Royal Court house in the Royal Square as a mark of protest for change.

What was notable after that was the intervention of the UK government, which stepped in and made sure further regulations for reform were

the Imperial Government, without, as it would appear, either the co-operation or sanction of the States, and for the prevention in future of much useless work of the like kind stepped in and enacted sundry regulations on its own account. For instance) it was at this period the Order was enacted that the meeting of the States was not to be adjourned without the consent of the President, and that when so adjourned it was to complete the matter under discussion before proceeding to other things; that the Bailiff was and should thereafter be bound to convene a meeting of the States when called on to do so by the Lieutenant-Governor and the Jurats. On June 2nd, 1786, came a Order allowing the States to fine absent members, and on the same date came one declaring that the States could not pass Acts for raising money without the previous assent of the Crown, at the same time authorising them to raise money by Rate to defray the expenses of any Agent or Deputy who represented their common concerns ; whilst on February 1st 1797, the fees of the Greffier were raised; and an Order was given on April 26th, 1797, extending the free exportation of cider to that made of "tithe fruit." It was ordered also, towards the end of last century, that neither the late Constable of any parish nor the senior Centenier should sit in the States pending an appeal relative to a contested election in the parish in question.

That these came down from "on high", rather than being generated by the States is clear when one looks at the documents themselves which were produced in English, with a French translation - for example:

1786 An order of the King and Council, concerning the political disputes between the States and the Royal Court, of the island of Jersey. Issued on the 2nd June 1786, Southampton

1786 Traduction d'un ordre du Roi et des Seigneurs du Conseil, au sujet des disputes politiques des etats & de la Cour Royale de l'ile de Jersey. Avec des notes sur les differens points s'y trouvent decides Imprime a Southampton, French translation of above (3)

Clearly Jersey was not as independent in these matters as later and more recent writing of its history suggests (such as that of the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache) . Most probably, the Order in Council would have been registered and published in the customary manner by the Royal Court, but that would have been basically "rubber stamping" a direct intervention by the UK authorities; the Jersey authorities were in no position to reject it. The States, of course, were to shortly receive another blow to their independence, when in 1799, attempts to imprison Methodists who would not drill led to an Act, passed by the States, being declared "to be void and of none effect" when it reached the Privy Council.

An interesting codicil to the movement of Reform comes with its leader, John Dumaresq, Esq., who had been but who very rapidly changed sides once he had been made part of the Judicial establishment:

Towards the close of the century the excitement for reform gradually died out, or rather it seems to, have received its death blow at the hands of its greatest advocate, for an astonishing change came over the mind of its leader, J. Dumaresq, Esq., who was afterwards elevated to the office of Lieut.-Bailiff and was knighted. As a member of the States he seems to have tried his best to extend the powers of the people, as Lieut.-Bailiff to deprive the people of a portion of their powers; and as a member of the States, too, he seems to have been the popular leader of all friends of liberal views, whilst as Lieut.-Bailiff he turned into the strongest opponent. (2)

But whatever became of the order of 1786, allowing the States to fine absent members? I wish I knew, but I haven't been able to find out.

Links
(1) JEP, 28.09.2010, p7
(2) Reverend Alban E Ragg, "Popular History of Jersey":
(3) http://jerseyfamilyhistory.co.uk/?page_id=10

A Crown Intervention in the Islands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Links

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

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

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

Independence Day - The Invisible Report

The JEP had a whole big spread on the recent paper produced on the possibility of Jersey going independent:

INDEPENDENCE is well within Jersey's grasp, a top-level government advisory group chaired by the Bailiff has concluded. In a document that goes further towards setting out a blueprint for independence than anything yet published, the Constitution Review Group found that there were no insurmountable reasons why the Island could not become totally self-governing. The group, which includes Sir Philip Bailhache, Attorney General William Bailhache, States chief executive Bill Ogley, States international finance director Martin de Forest-Brown and States international affairs adviser Colin Powell, has been considering the issue since 2005. Mr Ogley said that the 83-page report amounted to an insurance policy should it ever become necessary to break away from the UK to safeguard Island interests, particularly its finance industry. He stressed that its purpose was not to look at the advantages and disadvantages of independence, but rather simply to analyse what the impact might be on various areas of Island affairs.


http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/06/28/jersey-could-go-it-alone/

This was also reported by the Guernsey press, no news as yet from the Isle of Man:

The release of the report, by Jersey's Constitution Review Group, appears to have caught Guernsey's authorities by surprise. Despite the significance of the group's conclusions, that there is nothing to be feared from breaking the 800-year link with the UK and its implications for Guernsey should Jersey do just that, no official Guernsey line had been prepared. Asked about the report yesterday, Chief Minister Lyndon Trott (pictured) said he had not yet looked at it in detail. However, he is today attending a meeting between the Crown Dependencies in the Isle of Man and said that the paper would be on the agenda at the meeting when its conclusions would be discussed.

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/06/30/independence-from-uk-is-a-real-option/


This report (according to the JEP) was apparently commissioned by Frank Walker. As the report notes (along with the time frame being extended at December 2006, so that it has just surfaced now):

To submit to the Chief Minister, by March 2006, a draft Public Consultation Document ("Green Paper") which outlines the factual information and objectively evaluates the implications of independence.

All this has been going on behind the scenes, and for those who like either a culture of concealment, or the notion that Frank Walker is just plain stupid (and contradicts himself), just cast your minds back to Wednesday, 14 February 2007, when the BBC News reported something quite different. There is no mention of any report here. Has Frank changed his mind? The magazine Private Eye delights in showing how politicians contradict themselves, and assume that no one notices. But here is the Frank Walker take on independence back a year and a half ago. Quite different words! How amazing that in little over a year, we could have a complete U-Turn, and there is also no mention here of the report being produced in the background, behind the scenes:

Jersey's chief minister says it would be a bad move for the Channel Islands to seek more independence. Senator Frank Walker's comments follow calls for Guernsey to look again at its ties to the UK. Islanders led by Advocate Roger Perrot want a written constitution and a more hands off approach from London. But Mr Walker does not see the need to meddle with the current arrangement and the island is now thought of as more independent than ever. He also disputes the idea the UK sometimes bullies the island into making decisions. However, he does feel it is important Guernsey and Jersey regularly meet and share information, in order to keep on top of the situation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/6361043.stm