Case Study
Daniel de Lisle Brock and the Corn Bill
Victor Hugo
Prince Edward Island
Old Court House
Sparring with Palmerston
The Guernsey reaction to Victor Hugo's letters on the death penalty, 1854; an examination of newspapers and other resources in the Library.
Think now: ever since the sentence of death was pronounced, that noise you now hear from every clock is the beating of this wretch's heart. [From Letter to the Inhabitants of Guernsey, January, 1854]
Gazette 14 January 1854
We give below a most moving address to the inhabitants of this Island, from the sublime pen of Victor Hugo, on death sentences handed down by the courts, in particular the case we are now witnessing. It asks them to seek mercy for the condemned man Tapner, and thus to prevent an execution, something that virtually every enlightened judiciary in the world has exiled from its laws. There is no need for us to recommend to you the talent, and strong and energetic style of this author, his name alone is enough. His worldwide reputation says more about him than we ever could; let us hope that those Channel Islanders whose souls are charitable and merciful harken to his noble words. We admit that a terrible and cruel crime was committed, but we have overwhelming evidence that in those countries in which the death penalty has been abolished, these type of crimes are occurring less often; London, that great city, is an irrefutable example.¹
Victor Hugo was an indefatigable opponent of the death penalty.² His son had been sent to prison for the cause, and Hugo wrote letters and made speeches throughout his life with the aim of abolishing it. In 1852 he had come to live in Jersey, chosen for its proximity to France, where he was no longer able to reside thanks to his bitter hatred of Napoleon III. At the beginning of 1854 he was roused to action by the case of John Charles Tapner, an Englishman condemned to death for murder in Guernsey on 10th January. The Guernsey newspapers reported Tapner’s trial in great detail. In Jersey, Hugo followed the story by reading the Guernsey Star.
Hugo immediately decided to write a letter³ appealing to the people of Guernsey. He had reason to think he might enjoy some success; the Jersey authorities, backed by the Crown, had in September of 1851 commuted the death sentence they had handed down to one Jacques Fouquet for shooting his lover’s husband, William Derbyshire.4 In fact, three death sentences in Jersey had been commuted over a period of eight years. Hugo’s letter was published by only one of the island’s three main newspapers.5 The Gazette de Guernesey published it as soon as it could, on the 14th January; the Chronique de Jersey put it on its front page on the same day; both were French-language newspapers. In Guernsey, the Star noted that the letter had been received but declined to publish it; on 12th January the editor of the Comet had explained that although the newspaper acknowledged that the author wrote with the best of intentions, it was its policy to publish only in the English language. It did, however, have these words for Hugo:
An elaborate paper from the pen of the poet-orator VICTOR HUGO has been presented to us for publication..... We admire the motives which have induced the distinguished exile to put forward the aid appeal, but cannot pass the same eulogy on his prudence under existing circumstances. ... If the case under consideration admits of any palliation, the legal advisers of the convict have their remedy at hand, and to which they can have recourse without setting the community in collision with the judicial authorities. If a clear case can be made out for the exercise of the Royal clemency, we may rest assured the same will not be withheld; and if it be extended to the unfortunate individual, we shall cheerfully acquiesce in the exercise of that prerogative which is vested in the CROWN.
Adèle Hugo, in her diary of 18546, attributes this reluctance to publish to Guernsey’s “religious scruples”. Thomas Falla, Tapner's advocate, in his letter to Hugo, attributes the reluctance of the islanders to offer more support to both "false religious principle" and their inability to comprehend that a greater principle than mere punishment was at stake.
The majority of islanders could understand Hugo’s letter perfectly well, although Tapner himself could not speak French and had to have concessions made for him during his trial, which, like all Guernsey official business, was conducted in French.7 The letter featured in other newspapers published by Hugo’s friends; La Nation, in Belgium, on the 16th, and L’Homme, the controversial newspaper published in Jersey by other radical exiles on the 18th; and Hugo was gratified to learn later that from here it found its way to French-speaking Canada, where the authorities in Quebec were sufficiently moved by it to spare the life of a murderer named Julien.8
Hugo began correspondence with Tapner's advocate, Thomas Blondel Falla.9 The Comet of the 19th January, five days after the publication of Hugo’s letter, announced that a petition had been started to ask the Home Secretary, Lord Palmerston, for clemency for Tapner. Thomas Falla seems to have been instrumental in this; placed in several shops, the petition was eventually signed by around 600 people, including some of the most important in the island, but no non-conformist ministers, as was noted with contempt by Thomas Falla, and women and children, neither of whom, even supporters of Hugo were forced to admit, "could fully understand the issues". Meetings in Jersey in support of Fouquet had attracted around the same number; Hugo was disappointed nevertheless.
In their request for mercy, in response to the appeal from Victor Hugo, 700 English citizens proclaimed the principle of the inviolability of human life. The death penalty, they said, must be abolished.10
The petition may well have been muddled, citing the circumstantial evidence presented at the trial as a reason for clemency. For whatever reason, it failed; Hugo had been frustrated, awaiting news from Thomas Falla. He was to discover that Palmerston had also turned down the lawyer’s appeal for clemency; there appeared to be no grounds to grant it and Palmerston referred the matter back to the Jurats of the Royal Court, who, as always, implemented the law. Circumstantial evidence did not wash with them; the Jurats had been unanimous in finding Tapner guilty, so he should be punished accordingly. There had been just a few letters in the island’s newspapers condemning the death penalty; others had displayed a more equivocal approach. Even after the execution, the Comet’s editor wrote that “we are far from satisfied with the arguments of the abolitionists”. However, on the 10th February the execution took place and was a catastrophe. Hugo was still in Jersey and read of the appalling incompetence of the executioner in the newspapers. The Chronique de Jersey of the 15th February gives the details, and, following the Gazette, condemns the hapless executioner, John Rooks; the Guernsey Comet exonerates him. It was at this point that Hugo, no doubt exercised by the news to the point of desperation, decided to act. On the 15th February, the day on which the Chronique de Jersey had published the account of Tapner’s appalling and pathetic end, Hugo wrote a private note to himself:
To Lord Palmerston: You are hanging this man, Sir. Alright. Well done. I once dined with you, a few years ago. I suppose you've forgotten that; but I remember it. What struck me about you was the unusual way your cravat had been tied. They told me you were famous for the skill with which you tied your knot. I see that you are pretty good at tying knots around other people's necks, too.11
On the same day and in this frame of mind he composed a letter to Lord Palmerston himself.
On 19th February he wrote to his friend and publisher Hetzel:
My whole life has been one never-ending fight. And now here I am having to get in the ring with Palmerston. What an awful thing this Tapner business is, eh?12
The next day the letter to Lord Palmerston from Hugo appeared in the Times. It was rather strongly worded, and gave the impression that Hugo believed Palmerston had refused clemency to Tapner because he was influenced by Hugo's enemies in France.13
Why? Why is that refused to Guernsey which has been so frequently granted to Jersey? .... Why this difference where the cases were parallel? ... Is there any mystery connected with it? Of what use is reflection? Things have been said, my lord, before which I turn away my head. No, what has been said cannot be.14
This letter had an effect on Palmerston, although Hugo was not aware of this; Hugo’s account of the dreadful sufferings of Tapner in the letter brought about reform in the method of hanging in Britain.15 The letter itself, however, shocked and angered the inhabitants of Guernsey, always loyal to the Crown, and horrified at the suggestion that the British could be in any way swayed in their application of the rule of law by the requirements of the French authorities. The Comet, without comment, reprinted16 a scathing critique of Victor Hugo “and the Execution at Guernsey” from the Times. Even the Gazette, (whose assistant editor, Henri-E. Marquand, was later to supplement his journalist's income by teaching the Hugo family English, became Hugo's "Guernsey disciple", and who, in 1860, published a book about the life and execution of John Brown dedicated to Victor Hugo17), printed a condemnation of the letter, putting Hugo in his place in no uncertain terms.
In Choses Vues,18 Hugo's memoirs, he himself has this to say:
The evening before my visit to the prison, Mr. Pearce, one of the two chaplains who had ministered to Tapner on the day of his death, came to see me at Hauteville House with the Prévôt. I asked Mr. Pearce, a very venerable and worthy old man: "Did Tapner know that I was trying to help him?" "Most definitely", replied Mr. Pearce, clasping his hands together. "He was very touched and very appreciative of your intervention, and he asked particularly that you should be thanked on his behalf."
I note, as a common characteristic of the freedom of the press in England, that at the time of Tapner's death, all the island papers having more or less insisted on the execution, and extremely shocked by my letter to Lord Palmerston, conspired not to mention what Mr. Pearce now told me. They seemed to be making out that Tapner was a supporter of the gallows, and it wasn't entirely my fault I got the impression Tapner resented me.19
But was Hugo, for all the pomposity and affrontery the islanders so much objected to, victorious in the end? He did not think so, and his disappointment was evident years later.20 However, In Choses Vues, he has Etienne Martin, the Prévôt, tell him “There is something else you don't know, and that they have also deliberately not mentioned. You think your intervention completely failed, but you actually scored a tremendous victory.” He explains to Hugo that despite the island's adherence to tradition, following Hugo's letter the authorities had not dared to force Tapner to parade all the way to his execution on the sea-front, with his noose around his neck, as had always happened up until then. "They said, let's hang him, but in secret. They were ashamed." A hole was knocked into the wall of a garden next door to the prison, so that Tapner could pass through, seen only by those who had a ticket.21 Hugo, who admits he is giving us the gist of Martin's words, rather than the exact text, believed himself responsible for that. Almost exactly a year later, the Executioner died in the Town Hospital. And Tapner was, after all, the last person to be executed in Guernsey.
¹ Nous donnons plus bas une adresse pathétique aux habitants de cette île de la plume sublime de Victor Hugo, sur les sentences de mort prononcées par les tribunaux, et spécialement sur celle dont nous sommes présentement témoins, les engageant à intervenir en grâce pour le condamné Tapner, pour arrêter une exécution que presque tous les tribunaux éclairs du monde proscrivent de leurs codes. Le talent de l’auteur, son style mâle et énergique n’ont pas besoin de notre éloge pour le recommander à nos lecteurs, son nom suffit; sa réputation universelle en dit plus que tout ce que nous pourrions dire; espérons que sa noble voix sera entendue par les âmes charitables et miséricordieuses des îles de la Manche. Le crime est énorme et cruel, nous l’avouons; mais nous avons la preuve éclatante que dans les pays ou l’on a aboli la peine de mort les crimes disparaissent a une plus grande proportion; Londres, cette grande cité, en offre un exemple irréfragable.
² See his wife's partial biography, written in 1863: Hugo, Adèle, Victor Hugo, by a Witness of his Life, trans. Charles Wilbour: New York, Carleton, 1864, Chapter 51. This includes the story of Charles Hugo's 1851 trial, in which he was defended by his father, the texts of the letters to the Guernsey people and to Palmerston, and an address on John Brown written by Hugo.
³ This letter was published in an edited form in Pendant L'Exil; Actes et paroles: Pendant l'Exil, 1852-1870: Paris, Nelson, pp. 107 ff..
4 Derbyshire had found his wife in Fouquet’s rooms and was attacking her at the time; Fouquet shot him; Derbyshire had named Fouquet as his killer before he died. Details of this crime and trial can be found in the 1851 Chronique de Jersey, in the Library.
5 For the history of the island's newspapers, see Bennett, Amanda, A History of the French newspapers and nineteenth-century English newspapers of Guernsey: thesis, Loughborough University, 1995.
6 Adèle Hugo's diary, 1854. In the comment above, the editor of the Star wrote ”the requirements of the Divine law are completely overlooked in the discussion of this question, ... human sympathy is substituted for sound reason.” Cf. The Comet, February 9th, 1854: “Today the culprit was visited by the two gentlemen who conducted his defence, Messrs FALLA and GALLIENNE, and who, since his condemnation, have used strenuous efforts to procure a commutation of the punishment that awaits him."
7 On the 7th January The Star reported that the edition of the 5th with the details of the trial had been reprinted twice, and was holding up publication of the next edition. "The publication of the present number of The Star has been delayed till Friday by the unceasing demand for Tuesday’s number, which has kept our printing-machine at work without intermission ever since Wednesday morning." On the 30th January The Comet announced that Henry Brouard, editor of The Star, was going to produce a book about the trial and that its publication was imminent; but in the event, it was not published until after the execution; see the Gazette March 13 1854. Procès de Jean Charles Tapner: condamné à la peine de mort par arrêt de la Cour Royale de Guernesey à la date du 3 Janvier 1854. Trial of John Charles Tapner, Guernsey: Henri Brouard, 1854; available in the Library.
8 Victor Hugo avait élevé sa voix éloquente, juste au moment où la vie et la morte de Julien étaient dans la balance. La Nation, 12 April 1854. Cited in Notes to Pendant L'Exil - "L'affaire Tapner".
At the beginning of February, a man called Julien was sentenced to death in Quebec for having murdered his father-in-law, Pierre Dion. It was just at this precise moment that the European newspapers brought to Canada Victor Hugo's letter addressed to the people of Guernsey, asking for mercy for Tapner. The Moniteur Canadien of 16 February, which I have a copy of here, published this letter, and followed it with this thought, which I quote: Has this sublime argument against the death penalty not reached us at this very moment in order to show us exactly how we should deal with the wretched murderer of Pierre Dion? And now, a few days later, we read in Le Pays of Montréal: the sentence against Julien for the murder of his father-in-law has been commuted to life imprisonment. And the Canadian newspaper adds: Victor Hugo raised his eloquent voice, just as the life of Julien hung in the balance. [From the French].
9 Victor Hugo, Correspondance avec Pierre-Jules Hetzel, 11 janvier 1854-avril 1857: France: Centre national du Livre, 2004, 19 February 1854 p. 39.
10 Actes et paroles: Pendant l'Exil, 1852-1870: Paris, Nelson, pp. 521 ff.
11 À L. Palmerston: Vous pendez cet homme, monsieur. Fort bien. Je vous fais mon compliment. Un jour, il y a quelques années de cela, je dînai avec vous. Vous l'avez, je suppose, oublié; moi, je m'en souviens. Ce qui me frappa en vous, c'était la façon rare dont votre cravate était mise. On me dit que vous étiez célèbre par l'art de faire votre nÅ“ud. Je vois que vous savez aussi faire le nÅ“ud d'autrui." Pendant l'Exil. Cf. Robb, Graham, Victor Hugo: London, Picador, 1998.
12 "J’ai passé ma vie dans un pugilat eternel. Voici maintenant qu’il faut boxer avec Palmerston. Quelle horreur hein, que cette affaire Tapner!" Victor Hugo, Correspondance avec Pierre-Jules Hetzel, 11 janvier 1854-avril 1857: France: Centre national du Livre, 2004, p. 39.
13 February 23rd. There was a rumour that M Walewski, the French ambassador, had had an audience with Palmerston two days before he had reached his verdict.
14 From the Letter to the Inhabitants ...., in Hugo, Adèle, Victor Hugo, by a Witness of his Life, trans. Charles Wilbour: New York, Carleton, 1864, Chapter 51.
15 Robb, Graham, Victor Hugo: London, Picador, 1998.
16 20th February.
17 Henri Marquand became a close family friend, one of the few Guernsey people to do so, and later would have been related to the Hugos by marriage had his fiancee not died. He probably was not employed as assistant editor until a few months after the publication of the criticism of Hugo. Marquand, Henri-E., John Brown: sa vie, l'affaire de Harper's ferry, capture, captivité et martyre du héros et de ses compagnons; suivis de considérations sur sa mort et ses résultats probables, etc.: Guernsey, Thomas-P. Bichard, Bureau de la Gazette, Rue du Bordages, [1860]. He wrote other books:
18Choses vues: souvenirs, journaux, cahiers, 1849-1869, ed. Juin, Hubert: Paris, Gallimard, 1972.
19 Choses vues, p. 300.
20 From Pendant L'Exil. An 1865 letter in reply to A.M. Lilly of London, who asked Hugo for help to save a murderer named Polioni.
Hauteville-House, 12 February 1865.
Sir, you do me the honour of turning to me for help – thank you.
A scaffold is to be erected; you are letting me know about it. You think it is in my power to knock this scaffold down again. Alas! I do not have that power. I could not save Tapner, I won’t be able to save Polioni. To whom should I appeal? The government? The people? To the English people I am a foreigner, and to the English government an outlaw. Less than nobody, you see. England considers my opinion just like any other, perhaps a bit above my station, but most definitely powerless. I cannot do anything, Sir; pity Polioni and pity me. [From the French.]
21 Choses vues, p. 300.
Prince Edward Island
The Brehauts and Joseph Avard
Prince Edward Island off the Canadian coast of Newfoundland has strong links to Guernsey that are very much alive today. Last year a question was put by a visitor to the staff in the Library as to the reason for an emigration to the island that took place in 1806. Born a Brehaut herself, though not from Canada, this lady is a relative of the Brehaut family still resident there, who were an integral part of that early colonization. She explained that the Prince Edward Islanders knew a great deal about their history on the island, and brought some documentation with her, but that they were curious as to why their relatives had made that voyage into the (relatively) unknown all that time ago.
Usually we would not be able to point to any specific circumstance other than probable dissatisfaction with the conditions here at the time of emigration. In this case, 1806 was right in the middle of the French Wars and Guernsey was suffering economically, especially since 1805 when measures to prevent smuggling were imposed by the British government¹. In this case, however, there was more detail than usual available to us. Invaluable for our explorations were the St Peter Port Church records, The Brehaut Family, by Roger Brehaut, The Quiet Adventurers in Canada, by Marion Turk, the Gazettes de l'Isle de Guernesey, all from the Library collection, and many websites, particularly the Prince Edward Island genealogy site and the island's Archives.
In 1792 the Gazettes of both Guernsey and Jersey printed an advertisement from Christie’s Auction House for the sale of a large estate called "Stukely" in “the Island of St John”, part of which was eventually bought by Robert Shuttleworth FRS, and sold by him in 1804 to a Barbados planter, John Worrell. In 1792 it was being sold by Major George Burns, who was given the land in 1758 after the expulsion of the French. Channel Islanders had long been associated with the island, originally settled by French Acadians as “Ile St-Jean”; the main town of Louisbourg, afterwards called Charlottetown, was said before the British invasion in 1758 to be inhabited by Frenchmen and frequented only by Guernsey and Jersey fishermen and traders². Most of the Acadians were eventually deported as prisoners, and tragically many drowned on the voyage back to England³. The British Government was keen to consolidate its hold on its Canadian possessions and began handing out grants of land, including some to a Jean Brehaut, who had served with Wolfe and whom Roger Brehaut in his book discusses at length. Soon many more colonists arrived in what was now known as Prince Edward Island, many from Scotland.
The Gazette de L’Isle de Guernesey of February 1806 published several letters on the subject of a planned emigration to the Prince Edward Island, as well as a leaflet advertising the Island to prospective colonists. Those interested were to apply to a Joseph Avard, horloger (“watchmaker”), of the Pollet. Earlier, in the edition of 6th February, 1806, we read:
Henry Brehaut gives notice, that he has two houses, and a cooper-shop, situated at the Beauregard, to give to rent, at reasonable price, as he intends to quit the island. And the next week, 15th February: To be sold or let, for a term; the dwelling house and garden, with a house fit for a good stable or workshop, belonging to Joseph Avard, pleasantly situated in the Cornish [i.e. Canichers], possession may be had at Easter next. _ As the said Avard is about to leave the Island, the said house will be disposed of at a very moderate price; and Henry Brehaut gives notice, that on Wednesday next, the 19th inst., he will sell to the highest bidder, his two houses and shop, situated at the Beauregard.*
In St. Austell, the heavenly flame broke out in an extraordinary manner; and great numbers were there gathered into the heavenly fold. Among those whom Mr Clarke joined to the Methodists’ Society was ... Joseph Avard, becoming a class leader in 17894. In that year he was one of nine charter members of the Clarke’s Strangers' Friend Society, the object of which was the relief of distressed families in Bristol. He was intimately acquainted with Mr. Wesley, and attended his funeral, at which there was said to be thirty thousand people present. He also heard Charles Wesley preach his last sermon, 1788. At some point he lived in London, where one of his daughters was buried.
In 1786 Adam Clarke had come to the Channel Islands and evangelized them with great success, with 105 members in Guernsey alone upon his departure in 1788, Marthe Le Marchant, wife of Admiral James Saumarez, amongst them. From the records we see that another Avard family were also living in St Peter Port at that time; Sampson Avard and his wife Ann Jehan. When his son Sampson (more of him later) was baptised in 1803, Adam Avard was a godfather. Adam Clarke Avard, son of Joseph, became a Methodist minister in Canada in 1817 and died in 1821, but as he was born around 1800 he was probably too young to be a godfather in 1803. Although from her name Ann Jehan must have been a Channel Islander, a search of the Library’s marriage records drew a blank, and it is possible that she was originally from Jersey, where the Methodist ministry to the “Norman Isles” was based.
Joseph Avard is said to have been an agent for Lady Fanning, who owned land at Pisquid in PEI. Jean LeLacheur in his website about his family in Price Edward Island, however, states that Lady Fanning, the wife of the Lieutenant-Governor of the island and daughter of the Major Burns who first owned "Stukely", herself visited Guernsey and sold her land to the would-be emigrants.
She sold them shore farms. In May of 1806, the families arrived on PEI, but found their farms were next inland to the shore farms. This displeased them very much and in complaining to Lady Fanning’s agent, he doubled the quantity of land for each family. They were still dissatisfied, although some of them among whom was Jean LeLacheur, who now owned 800 acres of land. Jean LeLacheur was head of the LeLacheur family, whose wife was Elizabeth Windsor. They both had been born in St. Peter Port, Jean on November 25, 1771, and Elizabeth on February 4, 1774. They were married on April 19, 1794. Before they left St. Peter Port, they had six children, although one had died (Elizabeth) and was buried on Guernsey.
The immigrants had come in company with a convoy, as it was the time of the War between England and France. At this time, land proprietor, John Cambridge, owned Lots 63 and 64 and had a lumber mill at Murray River. He heard of those families coming out and being dissatisfied, he went to them and induced the men to make a trip down to Murray Harbour South and see the country there. In a boat which he furnished, they went down along the southern shore of PEI, landing at Guernsey cove (named by them) to prepare a meal. They continued their journey and arriving in Murray Harbour South were delighted with the country. Their families were soon removed, and these pioneers began the task of clearing away the forest.
Mr. Cambridge furnished them with food and seed for one year, on condition that they would repay him in lumber. The LeLacheur family settled on the south shore of the South River and remained there for some years.[From the LeLacheur website]
The settlers’ disappointment in what they were presented with upon their arrival must have brought uncomfortably to mind an exchange of letters in the Gazette of February 1806. The writer of the first letter is unknown, simply signing himself “Amicus” ( “A Friend”).
To the Editor of the Guernsey GAZETTE5. .
Sir,
Permit me through the medium of your paper, to offer a few remarks, for the consideration of those misguided Persons, who intend leaving their native Island for the of St John’s. In the first place, I would advise them to consider maturely, the advantages they here enjoy:- advantages exclusively pertaining to this favoured island:- here, we are exempted from all Taxation, while our Mother-country labours under an accumulated load there; we have mild laws; enlightened Magistrates; a philanthropic Governor; a Climate perfectly salubrious:- here, the Calamities of war, and its concomitant evils are unknown; this happy Island, from its situation, is peculiarly adapted to commercial Pursuits:- Its inhabitants greatly habited to trade, and, for the greater part, possessing considerable property, might easily turn their attention to pursuits of a more productive nature.:- The enlightened part are by no means dejected at this temporary stop to trade; nay, on the contrary, it is by many supposed that it will be the means of extending it to all parts of the Globe.
What are the advantages these infatuated people expect by removing to St John’s?
I will venture to assure them, that the pleasing Picture so artfully portrayed, has no truth for its basis; and when they have abandoned all the Comforts they now may experience, they will find on the other side of the Atlantic,-instead of a “Land flowing with Milk and Honey,”- a premature Grave- occasioned by a deprivation of all comforts, a Climate to them intensely severe, Land principally steril[e], and uncultivated. – Eight month’s Winter will be found by them insupportable, - having hitherto experienced one so very contrary. – Those who persist in going to this supposed golden Chersonese, I would advise to take plentifully of the good thing of this island for they will find to their sorrow, much need of them, and but little means, of procuring even the necessaries of life.
The Proprietor of these Lands, happily for some of the Inhabitants of our neighbouring island of Jersey, has found but few dupes to so chimerical a speculation. AMICUS.
The next week6 came the reply:
To the Editor of the Guernsey GAZETTE
Sir,
As I sat down Saturday last to read your Guernsey Gazette, was much astonished of the description Mr Amicus gave of the Island of St John’s. He certainly must have been much misinformed, and therefore know nothing of the place, and I suppose mistake St John’s of Newfound land for St John’s of America. Not that I fear that his unfounded argument can Influence any that know the real situation of the Island, but may intimidate, and by that means misguide that Industrious Class who would wish to preserve what their Industry have procured them in happier days (je dirai en passant), that incultivated Lands of course must be steril[e]. But, Mr Amicus, I can inform you, from the Authority of the Earl of Selkirk, where of 800 In habitants of Scotland Emigrated under His Excellency’s protection in the year 1803, wherein they have made a great progress in the said Island, now called Prince Edward’s, that the Soil is in general equal to that of England, and as to the Climate it is likewise equal to that of the Netherlands (ou autrement comme celui des Pays Bas), as to the good things of which you mention, Mr Infatuated, it is evident the manufactured goods must be imported in the said Island. But one great advantage. The Workmen [h]as no need to oppose each other as they do in this Country, which is a great encouragement to the Mechanic. But as to provision, I say it is a Land flowing with “Milk and Honey” and not subject to pay for Rents for one year, 14 and the next 28 livres, - So good bie[sic] Mr. Amicus, you will hear no more from me.
AMICUS.
And: It has been found, in the Printer’s entry, No. 328, Fountain-street, a paper addressed to Mr Chevalier in answer to Mr Amicus’ remarks on the persons who are going to leave this island. – Those who have lost it are desired to claim it, without fear of being named.
They were nevertheless determined to proceed and set off in the Neptune, whose Captain was Jean Messervy5:
Gazette 8 March 1806
FOR PRINCE EDWARDS ISLAND
The ship NEPTUNE, just arrived from Jersey, Captain MESSERVY, and now in the Pier loading for Prince Edward’s Island, will sail, wind and weather permitting, in a fortnight, from the date hereof, for freight and passengers apply to Captain Nicolas Falla.
There were 65 passengers from Guernsey8. These included Henry Brehaut and his wife Elizabeth Pullem (Pulham) and his children; Daniel Machon and his wife Francoise Pullem with their children Daniel (b. 1797, married another emigrant, Betsy Taudvin), Henry (b. 1799 ,m. Anne Le Lacheur), Elizabeth (b. 1804 married Jean Nicolle in PEI), and William (b. 1803); Joseph Avard, Frances Ivey and three children, including the 6-year old Adam Clarke Avard, and members of the Le Lacheur, Roberts, Marquand, and de Jersey families, and Nicholas Falla. They arrived on 16th May 1806. They have left behind them in Prince Edward Island a great many descendants and memories of “the old country” in the place names – Machon’s Point, Guernsey Cove, Carey Point, and Amherst Cove, for example. Joseph Avard moved on in 1813 to Point de Bute, Nova Scotia, where he is well remembered as a pioneer clergyman. He has many Avard descendants in the New World. Henry Brehaut Junior, back in Guernsey Cove, married Frances Avard Thorne, who had come over with her mother and brother. Could her mother have been the daughter of Joseph Avard and Frances Ivey? Perhaps someone can tell us.
In the Gazette of November 14th, 1807, we find the following piece of good news:
It appears that the rumour circulating some time ago, about the awful situation in which the families who left to go to live in St John find themselves, is incorrect. A couple of letters that reached us this week contradict the rumour; they agree in saying that the land is very fertile, and supports all types of grain; that there are fine fields; that the island has plentiful game, and the fishing is abundant in all types of fish. There is a good harbour and Charlotte's Town is growing; that living expenses are two-thirds cheaper than in Guernsey and that, in fact, all they need to make their home a paradise on earth are hard-working labourers and workers of all sorts. [From the French].
And what about Guernsey-born Sampson Avard Jr., whose relative Adam seems to have been a Methodist minister? He was a physician and by 1835 was in the US, where he was baptised a member of the Mormon Church. He became leader of a secretive sect known as the Danites8 and in 1838 was involved in the “Missouri Wars” in which Mormon settlers were driven out of Missouri with a great deal of violence on both sides; he was captured and accused Joseph Smith, whom he claimed (probably falsely) was responsible for all the trouble. This was just what the authorities wanted to hear and they imprisoned Joseph Smith in the notorious Liberty Jail. Sampson Avard was excommunicated by Smith in 1839 and continued his life as a doctor in Edwardsville, Illinois, where he died in 1869, having never tried to return to the Mormon Church.
¹Stevens-Cox, Gregory, St Peter Port, 1680-1830: the history of an international entrepôt, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1999, p. 40.
²See Turk, Marion G., The Quiet Adventurers in Canada, Detroit: Harlo, 1979, pp. 72-75.
3The history of the Acadians.
4 Clarke, Revd J. B. B., ed., An account of the infancy, religious and literary life of Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.A.S. &c., &c., &c., written by one who was intimately acquainted with him from his boyhood to the sixtieth year of his age, London printed and published by T. S. Clarke, 45, St. John-Square, 1833.
5 Gazette 1 March 1806, discussing the Gazette of 22 February 1806 (with which edition was enclosed Joseph Avard's advertisment, Propositions).
6 Gazette de Guernesey 8 March 1806.
7 For the Messervys and their trading businesses see The Quiet Adventurers.
8 Collector of Customs Inward: 16 May, 1806 "Neptune" of 160 tons Capt. Jno. Messervy from Guernsey with 84 passengers & baggage (from the Ship Database).
5The Danites were the subject of Sir Arthur Conan Doyles' first Sherlock Holmes story, A Study in Scarlet, published in 1887.
* Gazette de Guernesey, 5 May 1810; "To be let to the highest bidder ... for a term of one or two years, the house, out-house, and garden, belonging to Mr. Joseph Avard, situated in the Cornish, now occupied by Mr. John Press; and 6 October 1810; The house and premises belonging to Joseph Avard, conveniently situated at the Canichers, No, 1618 [cadastre no.], at present occupied by Mr Press, will be sold to the highest bidder, on Friday next 12th instant, at 12 o'clock precisely, on the premises. For particulars apply to John Angel. Earlier in the Gazette of 24 September 1808, Angel, "attorney to Joseph Avard, absent from this Island," had announced he was to sell by auction "the House, Yard, Pleasure Garden beyond, and Kitchen Garden behind the said house," belonging to Avard. "The said House consists of seven Apartments, besids a Wash-House, Copper, and many other conveniences; the Pleasure -Garden before the said House contains about two perches of ground, is surrounded with walls, and planted with a Vine, all the length of one of the walls, now full of fruit, and other fruitful trees and shrubs; the garden behind contains from 25 to 30 perches of ground, and a stable fit for four horses. And the whole borders two roads, and commands one of the pleasantest prospects in the neighbourhood of the Town."
Two articles on Channel Islanders' involvement in the Newfoundland fisheries: Transactions of the Societe Guernesiaise 1933 XII (1) pp. 42 ff., Newfoundland and the Channel Islands; and 1955 XVI (1), pp. 76 ff., H.W. Le Messurier and C. R. Fay, Newfoundland and the Channel Islands.
Old Court
A Case Study
Research into the Parker family of St. Peter Port led to an interesting line of enquiry into the history of their house – Old Court.
The Parker family are described as living in “Old Court” in the 1851 census, but the researcher was unable to tell the client where it was, or anything about it – no-one on the staff had ever heard of it before.
A search of the Priaulx Library’s photographs of St. Peter Port discovered the following photograph:
“Old Court House, demolished 1873”. Which explains why no-one had heard of it! But where exactly was it, and why was it demolished? The proximity of Elizabeth College is a huge clue to the location, but camera angles can be deceptive, so one of the library assistants, armed the library digital camera, went off to see if he could get a similar shot. The results are below:
Back to top
Daniel de Lisle Brock and the Corn Bill
'The depression in the price of agricultural produce may be ascribed to various causes: pretty certain it is, however, that neither legal or illegal importations of foreign corn are of the number and still more certain it is that the Channel Islands can have no connexion with any of these causes.' From a Letter from the Deputies of Guernsey and Jersey to Lord Verulam, Colonnade Hotel, Charles Street, 6th May, 1835.
On Thursday March 26, 1835, The Star published a letter from Jersey’s Bailiff, Jean de Veulle, to the Bailiff of Guernsey, Daniel de Lisle Brock. De Veulle had enclosed a letter that had been sent from London by Thomas Le Breton, King’s Procureur of Jersey, the shocking contents of which had been immediately debated by the States of Jersey. It transpired that while in London, Le Breton had read in the newspaper that the British MP Alexander Baring, President of the Board of Trade, intended to move forward a Bill for the future regulation of the corn trade between the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and Great Britain. Le Breton raced down to the Board of Trade to try and get a look at the Bill. After waiting quite some time he managed to obtain an interview with Baring.
He entered very fully on the subject, and finally told me that Government intended to place the Isle of Man on exactly the same footing as Great Britain, and deprive the Channel Islands of their right of importing their grain into Great Britain, duty-free. The Government appear to do this to satisfy the landed interest, which is extremely powerful on both sides of the House, although they admit that the quantity of Corn imported from Guernsey and Jersey is so trifling that it cannot have the slightest effect on the English market. I am really quite at a loss what measures to have recourse to, to obtain a respite; I shall do my best, but I very much fear that our cause is a hopeless one.
De Veulle explained that he news had caused a “great sensation” in Jersey, and asked whether Brock would consider co-operating in “endeavouring to preserve inviolate the privilege, which we have always possessed, of exporting our Grain to England free of duty”; he suggested that the islands should ask to be heard before the Counsel at the Bar of the House of Commons. Thomas Le Breton was waiting for instructions in London.
Brock addressed the States. He arranged an extraordinary meeting for the 1st April, to debate the matter. He explained that there was a great difference in economic significance between this projected bill, where a principle was at stake, albeit a principle of major importance for the islands' relationship with the British government, and the notorious bill of 1821, which had prohibited the importation of foreign corn into the islands for local consumption and “would in the course of a very few years have had the effect of reducing their population by one half, and eventually involving them in utter ruin”. Guernsey did not then produce enough corn to feed itself. That Bill had actually been passed in the case of Jersey, but Brock and his Jersey colleagues had managed to persuade the authorities to overturn it, as it would patently have been disastrous for the islands. However,
at the present period, which is so disastrous a one for the English farmer, and beset as are His Majesty’s Ministers with complaints from every quarter, we cannot feel surprised if they seek by every means in their power to appease the dissatisfaction which prevails.
Very small amounts of corn were actually exported to Britain from Guernsey. In fact, Brock suspected that the imputation was that Guernsey traders were mixing in foreign corn with their own produce.
In Guernsey, the producer of any amount of corn for export, no matter how little, had to swear an affidavit before the Court that the corn had been grown on their land, and the certificate had to be countersigned by the Governor; this could mean up to forty certificated signatures for every shipment of corn, as well as the shipper’s own certificate; in Jersey, where far more corn was produced, the system was more lax. Unless perjury was being committed, smuggling was the only other way that Guernsey corn, or “rebadged” foreign corn coming via the islands, could reach Britain; but, Brock pointed out, the cost would far outweigh the income and risk. Although a few years earlier flour had been smuggled from Guernsey into England, more profit could be at the present time made on two pounds of smuggled tobacco than on two hundredweights of smuggled corn.
Looking, however, at the question frankly and honestly, we cannot feel surprised if Government, in order to ally the murmurings that have been called forth, has found it necessary to place some limit on our exportations.
Brock pointed out, quite reasonably, that as Guernsey produced no more than one-third the quantity of corn necessary for its own consumption, islanders could hardly complain if they were not allowed to export any. (Guernsey bread was made of a mixture of wheat and barley, so relatively less was needed by the islanders than might have been expected.) He stressed, however, that they were
bound to do their utmost to preserve the privilege which England has granted and confirmed to us ever since we had the honour of belonging to it – we owe this to ourselves and our descendants, and we owe it to the islands of this Bailiwick which are capable of producing more corn than they can consume. It is certain that the Government has many powerful motives to conciliate the suffering agricultural population of England, and to give way to some extent to its interests, and even prejudices.
He suggested that the Custom-House returns² of the amounts of corn leaving the island for Britain should be examined, to prove the absurdity of the Government’s claims.
The Star agreed completely with Brock’s sentiments, and stated that
If we do not succeed in preserving the privilege, we shall at least vindicate our national character by proving that the charges brought against us by Mr Baring are utterly unfounded and that to attribute the agricultural distress experienced in England to the exportations of corn from these islands is absolutely chimerical.
The islands' interests were also under threat in other ways. Guernsey growers had planted a mammoth crop of potatoes in the expectation of turning them into “vodka” for export, but it looked as though the British Government was likely to slap onerous duties on this, effectively destroying the distilling business in the islands. In addition, Guernsey traders had been subjected to the same import duties as non-British foreigners in dealings with Canada, which for island merchants was a most pressing matter and felt by islanders to be exceptionally unfair, as it went against previous agreements. Alexander Baring was a businessman and financier with interests in North America, and does seem to have been hostile to the islands.² John Le Couteur wrote a letter to him, illustrating the relationship between the islands and the Crown, pointing out that Jersey had been invaded or repelled invasion eleven times, but this does not seem to have had much effect. However, on the 8th April 1835, the Government of Sir Robert Peel fell, and Baring with him. The new Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, elevated Baring to the peerage as Lord Ashburton two days later, and appointed Charles Poulett Thomson in his place as President of the Board of Trade.
Brock was duly deputised to go to London, meet up with Thomas Le Breton, and plead the islands’ cause, as he had done so many times before. In fact he must have felt a strong sense of déjà vu; his greatest achievement had come in 1822, having successfully undertaken virtually the same mission with the previous Corn Bill. He was this time accompanied by a Jersey Jurat, Colonel John Le Couteur, with the Deputy Greffier, Charles LeFebvre, as secretary. The text of the ensuing meetings and inquiries can be read in the newspapers of the next few months and in the Report published by the House of Commons in September, 1835. They include a letter from Brock to the Board of Trade,³ on a theme he seems to have felt very strongly about; that the Government had made elementary mistakes in calculating the amount of corn exported from the Channel Islands, accounts which it had printed and distributed, and thus given the strong impression that the islanders were dishonest, upon which much of the bad feeling against them had been based; that despite the fact that this was known to the Commissioners of Customs, they did not rectify it, and had not been called to account for it. He then writes to Lord Verulam, complaining that Verulam had made a speech at an agricultural dinner in which he had insisted that the Government would proceed with Baring’s bill, even though Baring was no longer in office to promote it, “because it would not benefit any Government to enable the rogue to enrich himself at the expense of the honest man”, and reiterating his arguments on behalf of the islands and their moral integrity.
The price of corn was in the early 1830s so advantageous to the Guernseyman that any that could be sold was being collected and exported. Brock and his fellow Jersey Deputés were called as witnesses before the Select Committee on Channel Islands (Corn Trade) of the 19th May. Brock, when asked to explain why the amounts actually exported from Guernsey had increased over the past few years, replied that whenever the price of corn in England was very low, the duty on foreign corn went up, with the consequence that the duty on foreign corn in England alone was at that time greater that the price of the very best wheat; whereas the Channel island traders paid no duty. Fear of just such a Bill as Baring had proposed had ironically made the islanders produce and export as much wheat as possible before the trade was shut off; it was, he said, like a run on a bank, with "hucksters" going from house to house persuading small growers it was their last chance to export to England. But more than this, the currency differentials, as much as 6%, made it worth the grower’s while to sell their corn in England, as long as they were paid in English money.
The evidence of a Plymouth corn-factor and customs officials, however, does indicate that the Channel island traders were occasionally doing something illegal. They seem to have sometimes mixed foreign corn with their own, never more than a third (since even Customs officials could have detected it in any greater proportion). Jersey and Guernsey corn was “weak”, and when made into bread would not rise as well as “Danzig” flour from Eastern Europe. Jersey wheat was large-grained, with thick bran. When ground, it was soft and grey. The corn factor was actually willing to pay more for mixed corn than for pure Guernsey or Jersey corn. He claimed he had visited the islands and knew that the Jersey factors would pay double the price for locally grown wheat than for foreign wheat, because the local wheat was certificated and could therefore be exported duty free. Colonel Le Couteur refuted these claims; foreign corn was far more expensive to buy in Jersey than was local corn. The customs official did not believe much mixing of corn went on, and that it was only possible if growers or shippers in Guernsey or Jersey perjured themselves; and most importantly, none of the witnesses agreed that the importation of Channel Island corn made any difference to the market price of corn.4
The Bailiff received positive feedback from the Committee. He was in Weymouth, just about to return to Guernsey, however, when one of the MPs for Plymouth, Mr Collier, produced a sample of wheat that had apparently come from Guernsey but which was, he claimed, hard wheat from Russia or Casablanca. [It was later suggested that it might have been a consignment of the much harder Alderney wheat.] Brock urged speedy investigation in Guernsey; it transpired that this particular shipment of wheat had come from no less than 72 different Guernsey growers, all of whom had signed their affidavits, and not even Mr Collier, who had made the same accusation about the same batch of wheat the previous year, could believe that they had all conspired to perjure themselves. The Bailiff and his colleagues were relieved that they did not have to return to London after all.
On Monday June 22nd, The Star was able to publish a report from the Select Committee, who gave their opinion that no material abuse had been made by the island of their ancient privilege, and that in accordance with the Deputés denials, they had no proof that any abuse had taken place at all: that
it would not be expedient to abrogate or infringe those privileges which are now enjoyed by the inhabitants of those islands, and which were conferred upon them in consideration of the signal services which, at various periods of our history they have rendered to the Crown and people of this country.
Brock arrived back in the island on the 22nd June on the cutter, Princess Charlotte. In a scene very reminiscent of his return from his greatest triumph in 1822, a large crowd came out to meet him at the North and South Piers, but this time he transferred to a small boat rowed by his brother Savery Brock and the Procureur, and landed instead at Fermain, nearer to his house at Bon Air. Despite the crowds’ disappointment, the ships in the harbour hoisted their flags, Morgan's Anna Eliza gave him a 14-gun salute, and the church bells rang out throughout the day (they were usually rung once on the return of the Bailiff to the island). The island wanted to reward him for his efforts, now and in the past. On 20th July, the Star listed suggested ways to achieve this: a statue in the Market Square, or the planned Botanical Garden, the Bailiff to be dressed appropriately in a toga; a portrait to be hung at the Royal Court; or medals. The Bailiff had refused to discuss the matter in public until the printed report arrived from the Select Committee, only allowing himself to thank the Jersey representatives and Charles Lefebvre, but in private expressed a preference for a commemorative medal. The Report had to be translated into French before it could be submitted to the States, and it was not until September 14th that Lieutenant-Bailiff John Guille was able to bring up the subject. Finally, the Jurats met at Brock’s house, Bon Air, and were treated to déjeuner à la fourchette, after which John Guille addressed him and asked him to allow a portrait to be hung in the Court House, alongside those of Sir John Doyle, Lord de Saumarez, and Sir John Colborne.
¹ For an account of Daniel De Lisle Brock's political life, see James Marr's Guernsey People, in the Library.
² These were destroyed during the Second War, but a breakdown of these particular records can be found in the printed Report. Other data is available but scarce.
³ The pressure on the islands from these sources was unrelenting, however; in 1842 Robert Peel imposed a crippling duty on confectionery from Guernsey, destroying a very young but lucrative trade and several hundred jobs following lobbying from vested British interests. See Ouseley, M. H., "Guernsey and Sugar in the mid-nineteenth century", Report and Transactions of the Société Guernesiaise, 1971, pp. 106-114.
4 For a detailed description of the cutivation of wheat in Jersey, see Quayle's General View of the Agriculture and the Present State of the Islands &c., 1815, pp. 82 ff.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
