JEAN CHEVALIER AND HIS TIMES
The Story of Sir George Carteret, Baronet & The Great Rebellion
By A.C.Saunders

      Copyright (c) 2003 Nathan Thomas.
      Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
      under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
      or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
      with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
      A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
      Free Documentation License".

PREFACE

In submitting to the general public this volume dealing with the troublous times in 
Jersey before and during the Great Rebellion when the Church was undergoing many 
changes; the Governor and Bailiff were disputing about the direction of Military and 
Civil affairs; the commencement of the Rebellion; the death of Sir Philip de Carteret 
the Royalist Lieutenant-Governor and Bailiff; the activities of the Paliamentarians 
under Lydcot; the arrival of Captain George Carteret in the Island and his rule as 
Lieutenant-Governor and Bailiff; the capture of the Island for Parliament by Admiral 
Blake and Colonel Heane, we are fortunate in having such a guide to events of the day 
as the “Diary of Jean Chevalier.”

In those days there were few chances of education in the Island, except for those 
whose parents could afford to send their sons to Universities in England and France, 
but any lack of education on the part of Jean is made up by the very intelligent 
manner in which he has described the different events as they came under his notice.  
The Diary is difficult to read as it is written in French little understood by scholars of 
the present day and we owe a great debt to the Societe Jersiase who, nearly thirty 
years ago, published the Diary as it was written.  It is therefore of little use to the 
ordinary reader and even a good French scholar has difficulty in following the text of 
this work.

I have, however, endeavoured to extract from the diary a sequence of events which 
are supported by the writings of contemporary authors and hereby gratefully 
acknowledge the assistance received by the study of Clarendon’s History of the Great 
Rebellion, Pepys’ Diary, Hoskins’ Charles II in the Channel Islands, Durell’s notes on 
Falle’s History and the many other histories and works dealing with this period.  I 
have, as Honorary Librarian of the Societe Jersiaise, had the privilege of studying 
carefully the many ancient manuscripts in my charge and have also availed myself of 
the privileges granted students and others by the authorities of the British Museum.

To Mr. G. A. Keiley I am indebted for his illustration of a Jersey Farmhouse of the 
seventeenth century and to Miss Patience Webb, B.A., Oxon., for her very valuable 
assistance in dealing with illustrations and manuscript work.  I have also to thank the 
Rector of Exeter College, Oxford, for kindly writing the introduction to the book.  He 
is a Jerseyman, of whom we are all proud, whose forbears for many generations have 
always taken the keenest interest in the affairs of the Island.

I submit the book to the public in the hope that my work in dealing with this great 
period of English History has not been in vain.

A. C. SAUNDERS.

September, 1936.  Beaumont, Jersey.


Jean Chevalier and his Times prior to the Great Rebellion

JEAN CHEVALIER

To most people the name of Jean Chevalier means nothing, but, to those interested in 
the history of the Island of Jersey, he becomes the “Pepys” of our Island – somewhat 
different from our old friend Samuel who hesitated not in the frankest manner to 
describe the many episodes of his very busy but somewhat amorous passage through 
life.
In Chevalier’s diary self plays a very minor part but, like all Jerseymen, he was 
intensely interested in his fellow men and, as incident followed incident during those 
eight troublous years 1643-1651 – the most exciting and interesting period of our 
history – they found a place in Jean’s diary.  He had good descriptive powers although 
it is sometimes difficult to read his diary, written as it is, more or less in the patois of 
the Island, and, as we read page after page, we get before us a panoramic mental view 
of the great events which occupied the attention of the Jerseymen of that period.  In 
1651 the diary stopped and we have no definite knowledge as to why it was not 
continued, except that Jean was a strong Royalist and, after the year 1651, members 
of the Royalist party had to walk very warily and it was dangerous for anyone to 
continue a diary in which the Parliamentary party would meet with no favour.  We 
know that Jean had been a Vingtenier of the town of St Helier, a position he had to 
give up after the capture of Elizabeth Castle, and that his sight was troubling him but, 
unlike the English Pepys, he could not afford and probably would not have dared, to 
employ a scrivener to write down his views of the current events of the day.  Then 
probably he had less opportunity of obtaining definite news and, as he was under 
grave suspicion as a known ardent Royalist, he was afraid to put on paper, or employ 
anyone to do so, information which, if known, might have been used against him.  
The Royalists were having a very bad time and the slightest false step might have 
resulted in the loss of liberty.
However, Chevalier left a wonderful picture of the great doings of those stormy times 
describing as he did the actions of “Sir Phelipe Carteret, Seiur de Saincte Ouen”, and 
the government of the Island under “Luytent Lidcot” and “Capitaine Carteret 
authorisay de sa Majeste.”
Mr J A Messervy tells us that the original manuscript, now in the possession of the 
Societe Jersiaise, belonged to a Miss Hemery and the Committee of the Public Library 
had a copy made for their use.  Later on, the original manuscript became the property 
of the Societe Jersiaise who, in 1906, gave particulars of the family of Chevalier of St 
Helier, tracing them back to the beginning of the sixteenth century.  From there we 
find that Jean was the grandson of Raulin “Proprietaire de Navir en 1564, presume 
mort a l’etranger vers 1565” and that his grandmother’s Christian name was Louise of 
Louyx but there is no knowledge of the surname.  They had three children and the 
eldest, Clement, was the father of Jean, the subject of this book.  His father died when 
he was about ten years of age, and, apart from his diary, the only official notice we 
can trace of our friend is that he was a Vingtenier of the town 1638-1651, Officier 
pour l’Extente 1665, and Diacre de St Helier.  He married Marie, the daughter of 
Centenier Edward de la Cloche of St Helier, whose son was the Rector of St Ouen 
from 1628-1645.
From his diary we learn very little about himself except that he was an ardent Royalist 
and a man of strong religious views and, living within the official circle, he was able 
to collect much valuable information about the current events of the day.  He lived in 
a house in the Royal Square, where, within the last fifty years, Les Chroniques de 
Jersey had their premises.

SIR PHILIP CARTERET
At that time the principle personage in the Island was Sir Philip de Carteret, Seigneur 
de St Ouen, a man of strong ideas of his powers and one who, during the early years 
of the seventeenth century, had managed to aquire for himself and family all the 
principal posts in the government of the Island.  Sir Philip was born in the year 1583 
and, when he was twenty-two years of age, was made the senior Jurat of the Island, 
and at the age of thirty-three, he received the honour of knighthood.  On the death of 
Bailiff Herault in 1626, he became Bailiff of the Island and, five years later, he was 
appointed by Sir Thomas Jermyn as Lieut.-Governor.  He married Ann, the daughter 
of Sir Francis Dowse, and in 1625 he and his wife purchased the Manor of Rosel from 
Abraham Payn but, having done so without permission from the King, he was fined 
for the offence.  There were other candidates for the Bailiffship and the Duke of 
Buckingham was supporting the claims of Philip Maret.  On the death of Bailiff 
Herault, Sir John Peyton wrote to Lord Conway that the assembly of the States had 
chosen Sir Philip as Judge Delegate until a new Bailiff was appointed and that the 
States greatly desired that he should succeed Mr. Herault as Bailiff.  Sir Philip in a 
letter to Secretary Conway said that the Governor was getting to be a very old man 
and that “The place might the better enable me hereafter to do His Majesty’s service 
and keep myself in some reputation.”  In support of his application, de Carteret said 
that Maret would have great difficulty in carrying out the duties of the office, “Being 
unacquainted with the common country language of the Isle, the terms of our laws, 
customs and style of proceedings – hardly known to ourselves.”
Sir Philip became Bailiff and one of his early duties was to examine and report on a 
petition sent from Jersey against James Bandinell, minister of St Mary’s and David 
Bandinell Dean of Jersey, for having made “undutiful and factious speeches.”
Theron commenced the bitter enmity which had been aroused against Sir Philip in the 
minds of these Italian ministers who had been appointed to the Ecclesiastical Office in 
Jersey.  After Bandinell became Dean his actions showed that he was fully determined 
to use his authority in safeguarding the honour and privileges of his office, and he 
soon was at war with his Churchwardens and many of the best educated people of the 
Island.  His son was made Rector of St Mary, and the appointment was so unpopular 
that Constable Hue and others endeavoured to make his position as uncomfortable as 
possible – even using the Church itself as the scene of many unchristian activities.
Shortly after his appointment, the Dean suspended one of the Rectors for preaching 
against the use of the Book of Common Prayer in his church notwithstanding that the 
Rector tried to excuse himself on the ground of conscience.
Therefore the high actions of the Dean aroused bitter enemies in the Island – possibly 
their Italian nationality may have helped this unpopularity – and people began to talk 
about the seditious tone of their sermons and how in one of them the Dean had stated 
“That we were under a worse reign than Queen Mary’s,” and the assistance of the 
Privy Council was sought for.
Meanwhile reports were frequent about the warlike preparations carried on in 
Normandy and the Council approved of the Bailiffs recommendation that two 
hundred soldiers be sent to the Island to assist against any attack by the enemy.  He 
had also recommended that an experienced captain should be sent over to drill the 
companies raised in the Island and complained that the Islanders were not very 
enthusiastic in arming themselves for the defence of their homes.
Writing from Mont Orgueil Castle on the 24th July, 1628, Sir John Peyton and Sir 
Philip de Carteret in a letter to the Secretary replied: “As for the present state of the 
Island the people live in that security and carelessness that they cannot be brought to 
perform any duties but by constraint.”  They even objected to soldiers being sent from 
England for their protection – possibly because they had to pay for them and to house 
them – but the soldiers of those days were not always the most pleasant people to live 
with, and we find that later on Sir Philip referred to the many complaints made against 
the soldiers and pointed out that there were no means of punishing them – as the 
soldiers lacked pay.  The men sent to Jersey were impressed, often men of bad 
character with no experience of military duties, and the Lord Lieutenants of the 
different countries were, from time to time, called upon to send men to various places 
as military units, and when in 1627 the Lord Lieutenant of Devon, was directed to 
impress and send one hundred men for the defence of Jersey, he complained to the 
Council of the hardship of these frequent assessments as “The superfluity of men is 
gone and the labourers must serve the next time if the Lords do not spare the County.”  
These men were entitled to three shillings a week – often not paid – and therefore it is 
no wonder that they looked for opportunities to make most of their military privileges, 
and banding together, they were liable to use their power to take advantage of the 
fears of the people.
The soldiers were sent to defend the Castles and the people were ordered by the 
Governor to supply cider and wood for their use – on credit – but although some were 
willing, most parishes refused to obey the order as they said it was an innovation and 
against the privileges of the Island.
Stores and arms, sent down for the use of the inhabitants were quite inadequate, and 
Sir Philip petitioned that he might be paid the expenses that he had incurred on behalf 
of the Government.
Sir Philip frequently visited England in connection with the duties of his office, and 
his voyages were often accompanied by great danger.  On the 15th October, 1621, he 
writes to Mr. Secretary Conway: “Your mare which was shipped with great difficulty 
but she has come safe and sound to me.  I thought to have been in London shortly but 
my wife being brought to bed with a boy, winter has encroached so fast that I defer 
my journey until March.”  In the same letter he said that the Jerseymen were short of 
arms and that the times are troublesome as “We are looked on from France with an 
evil eye,” but they were doing their best and one hundred and eighty-six persons kept 
night watches at the various landing places in the Island.  He wound up by sending 
Lady Conway two best receipts for making mead and hypocras.
In 1625 it was reported that the King of Spain had eighteen ships at Dunkirk and 
twelve ships at Ostend ready to pounce on British commerce, and the ships were of 
two hundred to three hundred tons each armed with twelve to twenty-four pieces of 
ordnance.  Trade with England had become so dangerous and “So ill assured that the 
merchants are loath to venture.”
It must have been a very anxious time for Sir Philip as Bailiff with an old man as 
Governor of the Island and a population not very enthusiastic in facing the dangers 
which surrounded them.  Then what little money, sent from England, was received 
after many delays and difficulties.  In April 1626, a meeting was held in St Helier’s 
when the Lieut.-Colonels of the Jersey regiments were told that they were to provide 
their men with the necessary arms, muskets, corselets and pikes for which “Presently 
money will be levied by distress.”
So much of the responsibility for the protection of the Island rested with Sir Philip, 
and, when returning from England in March 1628 in the good ship “Sara” of Jersey 
with a cargo of arms and stores for the Island, the vessel was captured by one of the 
Dunkirk ships and Sir Philip was taken to Dunkirk as a prisoner where he remained 
for three months until he was ransomed and returned to Jersey.
In September 1629 Sir Philip wrote to inform the Secretary that five young 
Portuguese princesses had arrived in Jersey.  They had travelled through France as 
ordinary people and were to wait in Jersey until the arrival of Dutch vessels which 
were to take them to their uncle, the Prince of Orange.
Early in 1629 the French government issued a proclamation whereby it was forbidden 
to trade with the Channel Islands upon pain of death.  Fortunately later on it was 
ascertained that the war was over for the time being.
In 1630 Captain Francis Rainforth was appointed Lieut.-Governor, but he was not 
very popular as his zeal for the defence of the Island did not meet with the support of 
many of the people in the country who objected to being compelled to do duty at the 
Castle or elsewhere, and Sir Philip and Captain Rainforth did not get on very well, but 
some time after, Sir Thomas Jermyn was appointed Governor and he nominated Sir 
Philip as his Lieutenant.
On the 8th July, 1630 the Constable of St Lawrence refused to assist in the defence of 
Elizabeth Castle and said that although he was bound to maintain the privileges of his 
parish, there was no law which compelled his parishioners to do duty at the Castle.  
He was arrested, and, when he continued in his mutinous conduct, made prisoner in 
the Castle, where he was looked up to as a “Martyr” by most Jerseymen.

MILITARY ARANGEMENTS FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE ISLAND
In 1629 the King wrote to Lord Danby, Governor of Guernsey, and placed in his 
charge the defence of both Islands, as was most natural, for at that time Guernsey was 
considered more important than Jersey, and he was directed to seek the cordial co-
operation of Sir Philip de Carteret “In whose ability and care we place much 
confidence,” and on the 19th March, 1629, Lord Danby in a letter to Lord Conway, 
stated that he had visited Jersey and reviewed the trained bands to the number of one 
thousand two hundred, ill armed and worse in order, and he suggested that a 
Commission for Martial Law be sent to Jersey to correct the many disorders there.  In 
the Bulletin of the Societe Jersiaise, Vol. 2, page II, we find a list of the names of 
those belonging to the militia in 1617 from the parish of St Saviour.  They were 
armed with “Mousquets, harquebuzes, halbardes et fanquets,” and certain members of 
the company were appointed to use their horses to draw the faucon and demi-faucon 
belonging to the parish from place to place as required.  The Captain of the company 
was Aron Messervy with Clement Journeaulx, Tambour, and Jean Durell, canonier.
The Island militia was divided into three regiments, namely:- South-West consisting 
of the men of St Ouen, St Peter, St Brelade and St Lawrence.  North – St Mary, St 
John, Trinity, St Martin.  South-East – St Saviour, St Helier, St Clement and 
Grouville.  At the first sign of the approach of enemy, the church bells were rung and 
each militiaman rushed to the parish church to take up duty.  Each parish had to 
supply six carts for the carriage of ammunition and provisions, and each Vingtenier 
was responsible for the cart belonging to his Vingtaine.  These carts could be used, if 
necessary and if the enemy managed to set foot on the Island, as barricades to hinder 
the progress of the enemy.  Then fifty men from St Brelade and St Peter were to be 
available to assist in the defence of St Aubin’s Tower and pier; seventy men from St 
Helier and St Saviour to assist at Elizabeth Castle, and seventy men from St Martin 
and Grouville to assist at Mont Orgueil, and Colonels and Captains were directed to 
take the utmost care in seeing that their communication with the Lieutenant-Governor 
was properly maintained.

PIRATES AROUND THE COAST
Things were very bad, the seas were infested with pirates, stores and provisions 
captured whilst on passage, and it was stated that seventeen or eighteen picaroons 
belonging to France were lying about the Island to pounce on and capture any passing 
vessel.
Earlier, on the 9th October, 1625, Sir Philip had reported that the seas were infested 
with pirates – especially in war time – and that trade and commerce with other parts 
of the Kingdom are thereby cut off, and he suggests that one of His Majesty’s Scouts 
shall be sent down to scour the seas between the Islands and to anchor there at 
convenient times.  He added that if his suggestion were adopted then the States of 
Jersey would be prepared to maintain a skilful pilot for the proper navigation of the 
vessel.  His proposal was adopted and Captain Lewis Kirke of the “Eighth Whelp” 
was directed to cruise along the coasts of Jersey and Guernsey and then to Land’s End 
and try and find the Turks and other pirates, but he had to face very bad weather and 
as he was provisioned only for nineteen days and could not get beyond Cape Le 
Hogue, he returned to the Isle of Wight to await further orders.
Only small ships were considered as available for this service as the Admiralty 
decided that it would be dangerous during the winter months to send a large vessel to 
the Channel Islands owing to the many dangers to navigation.
We find many notices of pirates during the first half of the seventeenth century and 
people crossing over to the mainland had to take advantage of any ship of war which 
might be cruising in the neighbourhood.  We hear of Sir Philip and his family after a 
visit to London and being ordered to report to Jersey, the Government directed that 
for his safe passage he should be transported by one of His Majesty’s ships, and 
therefore Sir Philip went down to Southampton and crossed over to the Isle of Wight 
where at Yarmouth the “Third Whelp” was awaiting them.
Then on the 25th September, 1635, the Mayor of Plymouth writing to the Council, 
advised that four Turkish men of war were in the Channel and that from Weymouth 
news had arrived that one of the Newfoundland traders had been captured off Scilly 
by six Sallee Men of War who, after having despoiled the vessel of her cargo and 
stores, sent her on her way telling the Master that there were nearly twenty other 
Turkish men of war looking out for the Newfoundland fleet.  Another Jersey vessel 
was captured by Turks off Land’s End and the Council are warned that unless force is 
used to defeat these privateers, many thousands will be utterly undone and many able 
seamen would be lost to the country.  It was a very anxious time for those engaged in 
the Newfoundland trade.  The danger from Turkish pirates was very serious and we 
hear that on the 27th June, 1639, Captain Nicholas Effart returned to Jersey with his 
ship and had on board seventeen Jerseymen whom he had delivered from slavery in 
Turkey, one of whom was his brother Peter.  He was allowed one ecu per day during 
the voyage.

SIR PHILIP AS LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR
Sir Philip was now Seigneur of St Ouen, Sark and Roxel, Lieutenant Governor and 
Bailiff of the Island and Farmer of the Impot, and his brother Elie was Advocate-
General, and nearly all the Captains of militia were members or connections of the de 
Carteret family to the exclusion of representatives of other worthy families on the 
Island.

BEGINNING OF THE REBELLION
Therefore it is with little wonder that, when the troubles in England began to arouse 
the attention of the intelligent members of Jersey families, those who were 
discontented with the state of affairs in the Island should associate their grievances at 
their exclusion from public life with the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor and Bailiff 
represented and were supported by the King and his party.  They therefore took the 
side of the Parliament.  Jersey at this period affords a very interesting study of history.  
In England we find that at the commencement of the trouble the leaders were men 
belonging to the nobility and landed proprietors.  Many of the nobles resented the 
introduction into their order of men who had little merit other than that of obtaining 
the favour of a weak King who was ever ready to receive the flattery of courtiers.  
These men had few scruples in their determination to get on.
Many nobles of ancient family therefore withdrew from Court and sought peace in 
their Castles and country houses where they still held power and were better able to 
nurse their grievances.
The Squires and wealthy men of the land objected to the usurpation of powers which 
were being used in the King’s name to uphold the Divine Right of Kings, and viewed 
with great suspicion the taxes which were levied without their knowledge and 
consent.  The Church in England, under Archbishop Laud, appeared to be coming 
more and more under the influence of Rome, and the fact that the Queen was a 
Catholic, and had a great influence over the King, aroused considerable uneasiness in 
the minds of people who had very strong Puritan tendancies.  Archbishop Laud was 
determined to maintain the unity of church services, and although in his daily life he 
was dominated by a sincere zeal for the welfare of the church, yet his methods were 
often cruel in his dealings with his opponents and the brutality with which he treated 
Prynne and others showed that he was determined to stamp out any opposition.  He 
was a very high churchman with great leanings towards the Church of Rome, and on 
several occasions he hesitated before he refused the Cardinal’s hat which was offered 
to him.  Therefore it is no wonder that he aroused the enmity of the Puritans in 
England, who, applying his own methods when they obtained power, persecuted him 
until he ended his days on the scaffold.  Therefore the people of England had much 
cause of complaint against the unjust rule which then prevailed and the Members of 
the House of Parliament realised that their powers were gradually being taken away 
from them and that their positions were becoming intolerable.
From time to time rumours of what was going on in England came to Jersey, often 
varying very much as the rumours came from Royalist or Parliament sources, but on 
the whole people took very little interest in what was going on.  They had their own 
grievances to interest them and they cared very little at the time of what was going on 
elsewhere.

CALVINISTIC RULE IN JERSEY
Jersey, like the sister Island, became very Calvinistic after the Reformation and the 
Church mad their own laws – or at least laws were made for them by those foreign 
Calvinistic leaders who had sought refuge in the Island and acquired power there.  
The Guernseymen were even more pronounced than the men from Jersey and a Synod 
was appointed which had its headquarters in Guernsey and those in authority 
gradually increased their power until at last the Bishop of Winchester was ignored and 
the liberty of the people and their home life ceased to be independent of religious 
interference.  In Jersey the Jerseymen resented the new dictation from the Synod, and 
this abuse of power aroused considerable discontent among those who objected to the 
Church of England being described as “The relicks of the filth of Popery and the 
bishops as knaves, enemies of God and bishops of the Devil.”
The Common Prayer Book was used in the churches of Jersey until the seventh year 
of Queen Elizabeth, when, on request from some of the inhabitants, the Minister of St 
Helier was allowed to “Preache and celebrate after the manner of the French Church 
in London but with the provision that in all the other churches in the Island the book 
of Common Prayer should be used as in other churches in England.”  At that time 
vacancies in the churches in Jersey were submitted by the Governor for the approval 
of the Bishop of Winchester.
But seven years later, after the Massacre of St Bartholomew in Paris, many French 
Pastors fled to Jersey keeping to their own form of worship, and little by little the use 
of the Book of Common Prayer was neglected and no action in the matter was taken 
by the Governor who had Puritan tendencies, and gradually, as their ministers 
increased in power, they introduced a new book of religious discipline which they 
caused ministers, magistrates and people to swear to.  But they overstepped their 
power and many people complained to the Bishop of Winchester of the oppression 
and bitter censures issued by the ministers in their attempts to increase their powers 
and, in a petition to the Privy Council, they suggested that the Common Prayer Book 
should be used in all the churches of the Island, and that the ministers, instead of 
being under the orders of the Synod, should be placed under the guidance of the Dean, 
under the Bishop of Winchester.  But the ministers cared little for any petitions and 
endeavoured to increase their power and exercise the greatest intolerance.
They even tried to direct the Governor as to his mode of living, but they overstepped 
the mark when they refused to allow Mr Messervy, a scholar of Oxford, who had been 
licensed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to occupy the pulpit of St Peters to which 
church he had been appointed by the Bishop of Winchester after being nominated by 
the Governor of the Island.
The matter was therefore referred to the Privy Council who appointed the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, the Bishop of Peterborough and the Bishop of Winchester to deal with 
the matter.  Advocate Marret and Mr Messervy were on one side and the ministers’ 
case was supported by Messrs Bandinell, Olivier, Effard and de la Place.  There had 
always been a threat that the Ecclesiastic Government of the Island might be placed 
under a Dean, and it is said that Mr de la Place was anxious to obtain the appointment, 
and, at the meetings held by the ministers to decide in private their course of action, 
Mr de la Place sent particulars to their opponents, and, when facing the special 
commission, the ministers could not support the claim they had so arrogantly asserted 
in the Island that they, as ministers of Christ, had full power to deal with the lives of 
the people in their parishes.
They made a very weak defence and it was therefore decided that a Dean should be 
appointed to act under the Bishop of Winchester and the Book of Common Prayer, 
published in French, should be introduced into the churches.

APPOINTMENT OF A DEAN
They were directed to submit the names of suitable candidates for the new office of 
Dean, but, as each minister considered that he himself was the most suitable candidate 
and Mr de la Place expected the office, they took so long in discussing the matter that 
David Bandinell, an Italian and Curate of St Mary’s parish, went to London carrying 
with him a letter of recommendation from the Governor to the Archbishop of 
Canterbury.  Bandinell was a clever man and made so good an impression that he was 
able to return to the Island as Dean, appointed by Letters Patent dated 8th March, 
1619.
A Proclamation was then made that the Common Prayer Book should be observed 
according to the laws and customs of the Island to the great rejoicing of the people 
who cried out “God bless His Majesty, we shall have our old religion back again.”  
Many of the old people remembered the times, or had heard their fathers talk of the 
good days, before the advent of the Calvinistic intolerance in the Island, and were not 
sorry to return to more normal conditions.
The people in Guernsey, however, seemed to thrive under the puritan regime, many 
were the followers of the teachings of Snape and Cartwright, who, in their day, had 
acquired great influence in the Island.  Cartwright and Snape were sent to the Channel 
Island, Cartwright as pastor of Mont Orgueil, and at a Synod held in Guernsey in 
1576 they drew up a code of discipline which was the cause of the trouble in Jersey.
The Dean Bandinell, when appointed, had full power to deal with ecclesiastical 
matters, and he and the several ministers of the parishes drew up a constitution for the 
church in Jersey for the approval of the Privy Council, but, in their proposed 
constitution they claimed so much power that the Bailiff and Jurats of the Royal Court 
appointed Jurats Sir Philip de Carteret, Joshua de Carteret and Philip de Carteret to 
appear before the Council with the result that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 
bishops of Lincoln and Winchester revised the Canons suggested by the Ministers and 
approved of the Canons so revised for all times unless changed with the approval and 
consent of the Bishop of Winchester and the Governor, Bailiff and Jurats of the 
Island.  Thus ended a great religious battle, and the people, tired of the petty religious 
tyranny which had been imposed on them, won, for as an ancient Chronicler said: 
“The Magistrates and more understanding people of the Isle, offended with the severe 
and unsociable carriage of the consistories, especially of late, since the unlimited 
empire of the colloquies hath made that government unsufferable.
People had difficulty to keep themselves from censure and their houses from the 
diligence of the Consistorial spies.”
Against their rule there was no appeal although the Ministers quarrelled with the 
Jurats in their endeavours to increase their powers which the Jurats disputed.
The consistory, an assembly of the minister and his elders, met each Sunday, when 
the conduct of the parishioners was subject to discussion, and if necessary, to 
discipline.
And now the new Ecclesiastical Code was in full force with an Italian, Dean of the 
Island, and several foreigners as ministers of parishes.  The church retained much of 
her power and they had to deal with a very ignorant and uneducated people who were 
easily swayed by the eloquence of the preachers who hesitated not to picture the 
horrors of Hell and the joys of Paradise.  Amias de Carteret, the Bailiff of Guernsey 
was a great supporter of the Synod but it had lost power with the Jersey people, and 
the Jersey petition met with great favour with King James, who, having spent a 
miserable childhood under Calvinistic teachers, was well content to reduce the Islands 
to the uniformity of service and ecclesiastical government as used in England.
The ministers endeavoured to oppose the introduction of the new regime, and Sir 
Philip, after advising them that if they continued in demanding a continuance of their 
discipline then they must choose another to present their request.
At the assembly of the States the Dean presented himself on the 15th April, 1620, and 
questions were then asked as to his proper seat in the States and he demanded that, as 
the Jurats were allowed to speak in the States with their hats on, he should be allowed 
to do so also.  There was much petty wrangling at this meeting between the 
Lieutenant-Governor and the Bailiff and sundry followers of the Calvinistic party and 
Samuel de la Place, minister of St Mary, and Daniel Brevin, minister of St John said 
they would not acknowledge Bandinell as Dean or as their superior in anything, and 
that the word “Dean” was not mentioned in Holy Scripture.

CIVIL AND MILITARY RULE – THE STATES
The great fight between the Governor and the Bailiff had been settled in 1618 when 
the duties of each were definitely defined, the Bailiff and Jurats now had full powers 
in all civil matters connected with the Island except in the case of High Treason, and 
when violence was committed against the Justices in the execution of their duties in 
carrying out certain of their political ordinances and regulations.  At the same time it 
was directed that no new taxes or money should be raised unless with the consent of 
the people and as the Constables were recognized as the best qualified to represent the 
people who had elected them to office, it was decided that they should have seats at 
the States’ meetings.  The States now consisted of Lieutenant-Governor, Bailiff, 
twelve Jurats, twelve Rectors, and twelve Constables, besides sundry officers.  There 
were only six pleaders or advocates, two being the King’s Attorney and the King’s 
Solicitor, as “The people conceiving rightly that multitude of lawyers occasion 
multitude of businesse.”  Now in Jersey in the twentieth century, we are practically in 
the hands of the lawyers, who have utilised their power to increase the number of 
officers and add very considerably to the emoluments of some and in most cases it is 
necessary that the public offices shall be filled by lawyers.  There is a wonderful 
difference between the lavish expenditure on the equipment of public offices in Jersey 
with those in England, but, with the introduction of our Income Tax in Jersey, money 
is easily obtained for as necessity arises the income tax can be raised until such time 
when those English residents in the Island may find it more beneficial to live 
elsewhere where houses and food are cheaper, and a time may come when the 
finances of the Island may be unable to meet the increasing expenditure.
The question of the seniority of the Jurats was settled by an order dated 30th July, 
1629, when it was decided that after St Ouen, Rozel, Samares and Trinity, the other 
Jurats should take their places in Court according to the dates of their election.
Philip Lempriere of Dilament was the son of Hugh Lempriere, who had been 
Lieutenant-Bailiff of the Island, and, when his father died, Philip was elected Jurat in 
his place.  When he came to the Court to take his seat he demanded that he should 
take his fathers place and have precedence over Philip de Carteret, Seigneur of 
Vinchelez.  The Court, however, refused to grant his request and decided that, as de 
Carteret had long since been on the bench, he should keep his place.  Lempriere 
therefore refused to take his seat with the result that owing to the number of Jurats 
being under seven the Michaelmas term had to be discontinued to the discontent of 
many people who wished their cases to be dealt with.  Sir Philip, then Lieutenant-
Bailiff, therefore wrote, on the 23rd September, 1624, to Secretary Conway that he 
had, in the Kings name, summoned Lempriere to take up his duties, and, as he refused 
to come to Court, had ordered him to be arrested and taken to the Castle.  Bail was at 
first accepted, but Lempriere withdrew his bail and therefore he remained a prisoner 
in the Castle until his case was dealt with by the Lords of the Council.  Among the 
Jurats, elected for life, one was insane and another over ninety years of age and 
therefore they were of little value to the Island.
The powers of the Governor and Bailiff were defined and it was decided that, as the 
Governor sometimes caused great discontent by refusing to call the States together, if 
the Bailiff and Jurats requested the Governor to convene the States the Governor 
should not defer the matter beyond fifteen days unless he could prove to the Lords of 
the Council that it was prejudicial to the safety of the Island or to our interests.

THE POORER CLASSES
The people in Jersey were more or less in the power of the petty feudal Seigneurs, but 
gradually as education advanced they began to think for themselves and to realise the 
limitation of their lives.  They were far better treated than those of their neighbours in 
France of a similar degree, for there the Seigneur had the power to hang his tenant, 
and as an old Chronicler says: “Those sheep which God and the lawes hath brought 
unto them, they do not sheer but fleece and which is worse than this having 
themselves taken away the wool, they give up the natural carkasse to the King.”
Whenever a peasant had a good year the lord immediately raised his rent and 
therefore the peasant was kept in a state of absolute misery.
There, the people suffered under many taxes, especially the Gabelle de Sel, but in 
Jersey the people were free from all imperial taxes, and whenever a new tax was 
introduced to England a clause was always inserted excluding the inhabitants of 
Jersey and Guernsey, and they lived under a feudal system of free subjection.  
Therefore they had no grievance against the unjust taxation which had so aroused the 
indignation of thoughtful people in England.
A writer early in the seventeenth century describes the Jersey peasant as inclined “To 
a kind of melancholic surliness, living in poverty and they married within themselves 
like conies in a burrow.”
They were kept well in their places, and laws were passed by which people who 
dressed above their station were liable to severe penalties, and on the 23rd September, 
1636, the States issued an order that the privilege of dress having been abused by 
persons of low condition, men and women, “Lorsque a leur etat et condition” in the 
use of lace, head dress of taffeta and thereby tending to the ruin and dissipation of 
their goods, it was ordered that no man, woman or child should dress above their rank, 
and women should not use lace above fifteen sous per yard for their headwear, and 
that only if taffeta were not used.  And it was no idle threat, for people who failed to 
comply with this order were brought before the Jurats for contempt of Court and 
Constables, Centeniers and other parish officers were directed to keep a strict look out 
on their neighbours to see that the Act was properly complied with.
Therefore there was some reason for the “melancholic surliness” of a people who 
were so carefully guided by both Church and State, and to the sturdy few, who were 
intelligent enough to study the changes of thought in England, it began to dawn upon 
them that their condition might be ameliorated although from reports received from 
the mainland it would appear that – “Factions increasing as men’s humours vary – 
most men governing themselves rather by passion than judgment and few regarding 
either religion or honesty in their answer of affairs of State.”
In Guernsey, the difference between the different grades of society was even more 
marked, and in their museum you can see three lanterns, one with three candles, 
another with two, and the third with one candle, and these lanterns were strictly 
limited to the use of members of the three grades in the social scale.

SEIGNORIAL COURTS
Then the little Seignorial courts for Seigneurs were very powerful in those days and 
each Seigneur held his little Court where people took their grievances, to be redressed 
or otherwise, and where the Seigneurs saw that their own rights and dues were not 
interfered with.  If in the eyes of the people, the Seigneur of those days was a great 
man, the Sergeant of the Fief was still more important if not so powerful, as he was 
supposed to have the ear of the Seigneur and saw that his orders were carried out.  It 
was a position much sought after by those who liked a little power over their fellows, 
and we hear of one Nicholas de Carteret, being made Sergeant of the Fief of Hougue 
Boete on payment of “One mutton yearly,” and that as Sergeant, he had to attend the 
Seigneur when he went to Court and, for this and other services, he was allowed the 
free use of twenty-five vergees of good land.  Probably other perquisites went with 
the office.
Thus our little Seigneurs went to Court in state, and the great Seigneurs in still greater 
state driving along the narrow country roads and lanes in their coaches sometimes 
drawn by four or six horses, or, riding into town accompanied by some of their 
tenants, and woe betide any unfortunate peasant who caused any obstruction on the 
journey by cart or otherwise.
The great people in those days were very fond of pomp and ceremony, especially at 
times of festivity or mourning, and as a procession passed from one parish to another 
guns were fired, and other visible and audible signs of consideration were shown to 
the distinguished traveller – dead or alive.
There were few people in the Island in the early part of the seventeenth century who 
could read or write and even the Jurats had often but little education.  Therefore it is 
not surprising that those educated Calvinistic refugees should have acquired such 
influence in the Island as most of them were men of strong character who were able to 
express themselves well in public, and their opinions carried very great weight.  
Therefore Sir Philip made a fatal mistake when he aroused the anger of such a man as 
Bandinell and others who had found a comfortable haven in our little Island after the 
terrible persecution they had suffered on the continent.
The majority of the lower classes, saturated as they were with feudalism, were more 
or less content to live under the conditions which had satisfied their forebears and 
there were always a very strong religious strain on their outlook and they were willing 
to look for guidance to their religious leaders.

SIR PHILIP GRADUALLY BECOMING UNPOPULAR
Sir Philip went on his way and used his power to his utmost, stopping a ship here, 
finding a man for leaving the Island without his sanction, and gradually losing a 
popularity which had supported him in the earlier days of his career.  He had a 
difficult people to deal with, people with few ideas but much interested in the affairs 
of their neighbours, people whose beliefs were saturated in witchcraft and sorcery 
which at that period dominated the minds of even educated people.  Witches were 
publicly burned in those days, and so many rumours went round that often people 
were burned alive, that on the 5th February, 1628, a decree was issued that “Rumour 
states that many people were hastily buried before they were dead and to avoid such a 
disagreeable action it was ordered that no person should be buried until after twenty-
four hours after their supposed death and in the meantime they should be attended by 
their relatives with face uncovered and those who ignored the order were liable to 
severe penalties.”
Thus feudalism ran riot and Sir Philip was head of the principal family in the Island.  
He was capable and not ungenerous and was kindly by nature, for when William 
Prynne arrived in the Island on 17th January, 1637, and was imprisoned in Mont 
Orgueil Castle in charge of the Governor, Sir Philip de Carteret, the Lieutenant-
Governor, treated him with such kindliness that Prynne was ever grateful.
“To your great favour and humanity to me while exile, Prisoner in Jersey…  Accept 
then this as a small pledge of my thanks unto you, till opportunity and better days 
enables me to find some other means to pay all that’s behind.”
This he published in his book on Mont Orgueil after his release from captivity on the 
7th November, 1641 by order of Parliament.  It was all the more to the credit of Sir 
Philip when we consider the treatment under which Prynne had suffered prior to 
coming to Jersey through the violent persecution of Archbishop Laud who fully 
expected that the same treatment would be carried on here.  But Sir Philip, 
notwithstanding his autocratic and unscrupulous tendencies, was a humane man, and, 
later on, we will see that Prynne was not ungrateful and was able to use his influence 
in London to save Sir Philip from arrest and probably the scaffold.
But alas, as Sir Philip’s power increased he wanted more and he added to the anger of 
the church by endeavouring to deprive his former friend, the Dean, of the tythes of the 
parish of St Saviour.  These tythes formed part of the endowments of the Dean, who 
immediately brought the matter before the Privy Council, and their Lordships, by their 
orders of the 5th May and 17th December, 1642, decided against the action of the 
Lieutenant-Governor.

HOSTILITY OF THE CHURCH AGAINST SIR PHILIP
The Dean like the Rector of St Helier and others were foreigners, notwithstanding the 
clause that preferential treatment should be given to Jerseymen for such appointments, 
- possibly if they came up to the standard of other candidates – and they were clever, 
eloquent and not very scrupulous men who were able to express themselves freely and 
when Bandinell realized that Sir Philip was trying to deprive him of his just fees, he 
and his friends became the Bailiff’s deadly enemies and used all their eloquence, in 
pulpit and elsewhere, to arouse the people against the man who had helped them to 
obtain their positions in the Island, and Sir Philip soon realized that he had made a 
great mistake when he began to touch the pockets of these men who had found such 
comfortable billets in our little Island.

MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INDIFFERENT TO THE STATE OF AFFAIRS
The majority of the people, with feudalism in their blood, were more or less satisfied 
to continue under the conditions that had satisfied their forefathers and, therefore in 
Jersey, it was not so much a struggle between the Parliament and the King – although 
doubtless many of the Bailiff’s opponents had studied and been guided by the trend of 
the thought in England – as a fight against a pro-Consul who had usurped for himself 
and his family all power and authority in the Island, and thereby aroused the enmity of 
those who had been excluded from the affairs of state.

TRADE
The people were ill-disciplined and suffered under many hardships and trade was 
carried on under great difficulties.  There were then some sixty or seventy small 
vessels owned by the Islanders but the want of a harbour caused great damage to 
shipping and added to those dangers to commerce caused by storms, fog and pirates.  
Only a very limited supply of sea coal was allowed to the Island which was brought 
by vessels carrying from six to thirty wagon loads of coal mostly from the ports of 
Swansea and Neath, and we read of the arrival in Jersey of vessels called the 
“Bonaventure,” “Star,” “Good Hope,” “George” and others.  All locally owned, 
bringing the necessary fuel to the Island.  Any coal, above the allowance, brought to 
the Island, was heavily taxed.
People in England knew but little about the Channel Islands and on the 30th August, 
1635, Mr William Strode, the public orator at Oxford University, in a high-flown 
speech before King Charles at Woodstock, referred to the Channel Islands’ 
Scholarships as “The endowments for the benefit of those little outlying fragments of 
the King’s dominions, Jersey and Guernsey”, and in a Compendium of the laws of 
England by Mr H Curson, Barrister of the Inner Temple, published in London in the 
seventeenth century he describes the Isle of Jersey olim Caesarea “with a compass of 
twenty miles, sufficiently strong on account of the dangerous seas.  It containith 
twelve towns or villages the chief being St Hillary and St Malo and four Castles.  The 
ground is plentiful in grain and sheep, most of them having four horns of whose wool 
our Jersey stockings are made.”
It was a time when a bold and capable man, who could express his ideas clearly and 
knew how to influence the unintelligent masses, could obtain great power and the 
actions of Sir Philip de Carteret and his supporters gave orators great opportunities to 
point out to the people the great injustices under which they suffered.
It was suggested by Prynne, after having been in captivity in Mont Orgueil Castle in 
charge of Sir Philip, who had treated him in a very humane manner, that had de 
Carteret had free choice he might have become an ardent Parliamentarian, and that he 
adopted the Royalist party because he was driven into the Royal fold by those who 
suffered from his usurpation of power.  The people themselves wanted no change for 
as Chevalier says: “Pour la plus part le comun people guy ne desir q changement.”  
They followed their leaders and shortly after the death of Sir Philip they were quite 
ready to forsake the Parliament party and return to the ancient rule under Captain 
George Carteret.

POPULATION OF JERSEY IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
Early in the seventeenth century the population numbered about 25,000 persons and 
in 1628 it was stated that of this number there were about 3,000 able bodied men – 
900 armed with muskets, 400 with pikes, and the remainder with bows, bills, sticks, 
and unarmed.  There was always a fear of invasion and there was a good reason for 
such fear for at the head of affairs in France was Cardinal Richelieu who hated the 
Protestants, and looked upon the Channel Islands not only as a place of refuge for 
Calvinists and others, but also as a danger zone of conspiracy.

DANGERS OF RAIDS BY THE FRENCH
Therefore French spies were very busy in the Island and in 1627, it was reported that 
Richelieu had gathered together some 7,000 troops at New Haven (Havre) ready to 
make a raid on the Channel Islands and Sir Philip writes to Lord Conway that he 
cannot leave the Island in a time of danger, as he was busy fortifying Elizabeth Castle, 
but he asks the Secretary’s assistance in defending his reputation which was suffering 
greatly by the columinous assertions of Mrs Rossel.  We therefore realise that even as 
early as 1627 opinion was strengthening against the power he was aquiring to the 
detriment of those not belonging to the de Carteret family.
We hear of Sir Philip writing to the secretary of the Duke of Buckingham 
recommending the case of John le Hube Gardenier, a protestant merchant, of St Lo, 
who had arrived in Jersey on his way to England to solicit the restoration of his bark 
and goods taken in the “Road of Conquest.”  Gardenier brought letters from 
protestants of high standing, honour, and worth in Normandy who were accustomed 
to send intelligence of any matter which might concern the Island and who favoured 
the stocking trade in Jersey, without which the country could hardly exist.
Therefore Jersey was in a somewhat parlous state with possible invasion from without 
and discontent growing among the people against their Bailiff and Lieutenant-
Governor.  For three years from 1637 to 1640 Sir Philip had plenty of opportunity of 
learning something of the state of affairs in England in his conversation with his 
prisoner William Prynne, who was released from prison by order of the House of 
Commons in 1641, the year when Sir Philip and Dean Bandinell had their great fight 
over the tythes of the parish of St Saviour.  England was then seething with 
revolutionary ideas against the suggestion that the King could do no wrong; the 
Reformers in Jersey, on a smaller scale, were encouraged by those who had suffered 
from the actions of the Lieutenant-Governor.

CHEVALIER WATCHES THE PEOPLE FROM HIS HOUSE IN THE MARKET 
PLACE
Chevalier appears to have known most of the people of importance at that time and 
we can imagine him watching the people from his windows as they gathered 
togethered in the Market Place to discuss the questions of the day.  He could thus see 
any signs of unusual excitement and join the crowd with little delay.  Possibly the 
news was only the successful return of some locally owned privateer, or the loss of 
some well known Jersey vessel, the illness or death of some prominent Jerseyman, or 
the arrival of someone who had brought news of the events which were so rapidly 
succeeding one another in England.  Nothing was too small for his attention, and 
when he had gathered what was going on, he would withdraw and enter it into his 
diary.  And thus for eight years we are able to get some idea of what was going on in 
Jersey from 1640 until 1651 when the Royalist rule ceased and the soldier of the 
Commonwealth had great difficulty in understanding why Jersey should not be treated 
as a conquered country.  Chevalier divides his journal into three parts:-
(1)	Gouvernement de Sire Phelipe Carteret;
(2)	Gouvernement de lisle de Luytent Lidet lauthorite du Plement;
(3)	The reduction of the Island by “Capitaine Carteret authorisy de sa Majeste.”

PARLIAMENT ORDERS ARREST OF SIR PHILIP
There were many capable men in the Island who were ready to join Bandinell and the 
Rector d’Assigny in bringing about the downfall of Sir Philip, and among them we 
find Michel Lempriere, Charles Maret, Francis de Carteret, Benjamin Bisson, 
Abraham Herault, Henri Dumaresq, Andre Durell, Philippe Le Boutiller, and in 1642 
these men and others forwarded a petition to Parliament against the government of Sir 
Philip de Carteret, and the Parliament authorized five of the leaders who were Jurats 
of the Royal Court (Jurats de Carteret, Lempriere, Dumaresq, Bisson and Herault) to 
seize the person of the Bailiff and take him to London to answer the charges which 
had been made against him.  This authority was in the name of the King and 
Parliament, and they were directed to call to their aid all those who were “Bien 
affectionee aux Roy et p’lement et a mantenir la religion portestante les lois et libertes 
du people, et preulegges du p’lement.”  They were authorised to put down by force all 
those who supported the rule of Sir Philippe.

SIR PHILIP THROUGH THE INFLUENCE OF PRYNNE RETURNS TO JERSEY
On the 21st April, 1642, the Lieutenant-Governor made a report before the States of 
Jersey, mostly composed of his own relatives and followers.  He stated that he had 
just returned from London where he had gone to beseech Parliament to reform certain 
defects in the constitution of Jersey and to have their ancient privileges confirmed.  
Whilst there he had been in great danger for the Jersey Parliamentarians had made 
many charges against his government, which charges, instead of being presented 
before Parliament, had, through the influence of Prynne, been presented to the House 
of Lords where the King still had many followers.  The Jersey delegation was 
therefore unprepared to submit their case in so cold an atmosphere and, when 
requested to prove their charges against the rule of Sir Philip, they made out such a 
poor case that the Lords decided that the charges were made out of personal animosity 
and that they were not proved, and Sir Philip was therefore allowed to return to Jersey 
where he was able to report to the States that, owing to the unsettled state of affairs 
between King and Parliament and the action of the malcontents, he had been unable to 
have their petition considered and the States therefore passed a resolution in which 
they disowned the action of the Parliamentarians and recognized the great services of 
Sir Philip to the Island.  At the same meeting of the States it was decided that, on the 
following Wednesday fortnight, a “public fast should be held in order to divert the 
wrath of God threatened for the divisions in the Kingdom and for the multitude of 
vices which reign.  To profess the profanation of the Sabbath by dancing and 
frequenting taverns, confirming various orders in that behalf and giving powers to all 
officers to seize the violins of violin players and carry the players before the 
magistrate.”

SIR PHILIP AUTHORISED BY THE KING TO DEFEND THE ISLAND
Sir Philip fully realised the unsettled state of affairs and had obtained from the King a 
commission supporting his administration and authorizing him to take all necessary 
steps for the defence of the Island.  He therefore saw that the Castles at Mont Orgueil 
and Elizabeth were put in a proper state of defence and well provisioned, and he had 
the King’s commission read in all the churches of the Island.  He presented this 
commission to the States at a meeting held on the 1st February, 1643, and a month 
later attended another meeting of the States accompanied by a large number of 
soldiers who guarded the entrance of the Court House during the meeting.  There was 
a full attendance, the great majority being supporters of Sir Philip, but, 
notwithstanding this, Michael Lempriere, well knowing that he had but few followers 
in the States, had the courage to rise and read the orders he had received from the 
Parliament to seize the person of Sir Philip, Bailiff and Lieutenant-Governor of the 
Island, and send him a prisoner to England for trial.  It was a bold action on the part of 
the Seigneur of Maufant, but he was not only a brave but also a very capable man.  
His action caused great uproar in the Chamber, and he was howled down by Sir 
Philip’s followers, and seeing that it was impossible for him to obtain a hearing, he 
endeavoured to leave the Chamber to discuss matters with his followers outside but 
was prevented from doing so by the soldiers who guarded the doors.  There was 
tremendous excitement among the people outside the Court, gathered there in favour 
of Lempriere and his party, and a warning having been received that the country 
people were flocking into town to seize Sir Philip, he and his supporters, under guard 
of the soldiers, left the Court and sought shelter in Elizabeth Castle where he 
remained, practically a prisoner, until his death.
The die was cast and civil war had commenced in Jersey and the first persons to take 
up arms in St Helier were Andre Durell and Philip Le Boutiller, Centeniers of the 
town.  The order to seize Sir Philip had been brought to Jersey by Charles Maret of 
Trinity who afterwards became Receiver-General.

		GNU Free Documentation License
		  Version 1.2, November 2002


 Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
     59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.


0. PREAMBLE

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to
assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it,
with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.
Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way
to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible
for modifications made by others.

This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative
works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense.  It
complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft
license designed for free software.

We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free
software, because free software needs free documentation: a free
program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the
software does.  But this License is not limited to software manuals;
it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or
whether it is published as a printed book.  We recommend this License
principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.


1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS

This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that
contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be
distributed under the terms of this License.  Such a notice grants a
world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that
work under the conditions stated herein.  The "Document", below,
refers to any such manual or work.  Any member of the public is a
licensee, and is addressed as "you".  You accept the license if you
copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission
under copyright law.

A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
modifications and/or translated into another language.

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject
(or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly
within that overall subject.  (Thus, if the Document is in part a
textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any
mathematics.)  The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding
them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles
are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice
that says that the Document is released under this License.  If a
section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not
allowed to be designated as Invariant.  The Document may contain zero
Invariant Sections.  If the Document does not identify any Invariant
Sections then there are none.

The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed,
as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that
the Document is released under this License.  A Front-Cover Text may
be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.

A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy,
represented in a format whose specification is available to the
general public, that is suitable for revising the document
straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of
pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available
drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or
for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input
to text formatters.  A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file
format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart
or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent.
An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount
of text.  A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".

Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain
ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML
or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple
HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification.  Examples of
transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG.  Opaque formats
include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by
proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or
processing tools are not generally available, and the
machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word
processors for output purposes only.

The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself,
plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material
this License requires to appear in the title page.  For works in
formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means
the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title,
preceding the beginning of the body of the text.

A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose
title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following
text that translates XYZ in another language.  (Here XYZ stands for a
specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements",
"Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".)  To "Preserve the Title"
of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a
section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.

The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which
states that this License applies to the Document.  These Warranty
Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this
License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other
implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has
no effect on the meaning of this License.


2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other
conditions whatsoever to those of this License.  You may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or distribute.  However, you may accept
compensation in exchange for copies.  If you distribute a large enough
number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and
you may publicly display copies.


3. COPYING IN QUANTITY

If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have
printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the
Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the
copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover
Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on
the back cover.  Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify
you as the publisher of these copies.  The front cover must present
the full title with all words of the title equally prominent and
visible.  You may add other material on the covers in addition.
Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve
the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated
as verbatim copying in other respects.

If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit
legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit
reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent
pages.

If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering
more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent
copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy
a computer-network location from which the general network-using
public has access to download using public-standard network protocols
a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material.
If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps,
when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure
that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated
location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an
Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that
edition to the public.

It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the
Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give
them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document.


4. MODIFICATIONS

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution
and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy
of it.  In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct
   from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions
   (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section
   of the Document).  You may use the same title as a previous version
   if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
   responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
   Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the
   Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five),
   unless they release you from this requirement.
C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the
   Modified Version, as the publisher.
D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications
   adjacent to the other copyright notices.
F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice
   giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the
   terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections
   and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.
H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add
   to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and
   publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page.  If
   there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one
   stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as
   given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified
   Version as stated in the previous sentence.
J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for
   public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise
   the network locations given in the Document for previous versions
   it was based on.  These may be placed in the "History" section.
   You may omit a network location for a work that was published at
   least four years before the Document itself, or if the original
   publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications",
   Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all
   the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements
   and/or dedications given therein.
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document,
   unaltered in their text and in their titles.  Section numbers
   or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
M. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements".  Such a section
   may not be included in the Modified Version.
N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements"
   or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.

If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or
appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material
copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all
of these sections as invariant.  To do this, add their titles to the
list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice.
These titles must be distinct from any other section titles.

You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains
nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various
parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has
been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of a
standard.

You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a
passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list
of Cover Texts in the Modified Version.  Only one passage of
Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or
through arrangements made by) any one entity.  If the Document already
includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added by you or
by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of,
you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit
permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.

The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License
give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or
imply endorsement of any Modified Version.


5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS

You may combine the Document with other documents released under this
License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified
versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the
Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and
list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its
license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.

The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and
multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single
copy.  If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but
different contents, make the title of each such section unique by
adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original
author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number.
Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of
Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.

In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History"
in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled
"History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements",
and any sections Entitled "Dedications".  You must delete all sections
Entitled "Endorsements".


6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS

You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents
released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this
License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in
the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for
verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.

You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute
it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this
License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all
other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document.


7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright
resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights
of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not
apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
derivative works of the Document.

If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these
copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half of
the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on
covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the
electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form.
Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that bracket the whole
aggregate.


8. TRANSLATION

Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may
distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4.
Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special
permission from their copyright holders, but you may include
translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the
original versions of these Invariant Sections.  You may include a
translation of this License, and all the license notices in the
Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include
the original English version of this License and the original versions
of those notices and disclaimers.  In case of a disagreement between
the translation and the original version of this License or a notice
or disclaimer, the original version will prevail.

If a section in the Document is Entitled "Acknowledgements",
"Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to Preserve
its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual
title.


9. TERMINATION

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except
as expressly provided for under this License.  Any other attempt to
copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will
automatically terminate your rights under this License.  However,
parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.


10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE

The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions
of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time.  Such new
versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.  See
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.

Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number.
If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this
License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or
of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the
Free Software Foundation.  If the Document does not specify a version
number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not
as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.