Ian Ronayne: In defence of our history - the threat to Jersey’s Militia in 1873

So, um, The year 1873 was a grand one.

And not just because a group of islanders came together and uh formed the Societ Jerzier, although that was certainly a grand moment for Jersey. Uh, this was also a grand year because uh.

This is also a grand year for the Jersey militia, that centuries old force that was unique, well, almost unique uh to our island. Grand because it was the last significant change.

It was the last before significant change challenged uh what had been, uh, for centuries, a well established routine in order. Grand because for the militia it culminated in a grand parade.

that took place on the 22nd of May 1873 on the sands of Saint Albans, and it was there to mark the.

Birthday of Queen Victoria. Uh, what a grand sight.

So that morning, the milishmen gathered at their arsenals all over the island and marched down, over 2000 of them onto the bay, en masse and in grand style to assemble before a very appreciative crowd. Now on that day facing towards the sea, we can see on the slide, there was a solid line of militia infantry formed from a number of regiments across the island, and these were the first North West regiment from Saint Juan, Saint Mary, Saint John, 2nd North Regiment from Trinity and Saint Martin.

3rd East Regiment formed from Grouville, Saint Clements and Setavia, and the 4th South Regiment with 2 battalions, the Saint Helier Battalion and the Saint Lawrence Battalion. And the 5th Southwest Regiment from Saint Beard and Saint Peter. The militia artillery, the gunners, well they took up station on either flank, armed with their armstrong field pieces, and behind the infantry and keeping the crowds back were 48 splendid mounted troopers under the command of Captain Dujardin.

And jointly all of these units, including the regular garrison regiment, uh wheeled and marched across the sands to the delight of the crowd, occasionally pausing for live firing demonstrations. For the militiamen there that day, it would have been a very familiar system and a very familiar experience and one that they'd shared with their fathers and their grandfathers and their great grandfathers.

But it was also a system under considerable threat and not from the enemy on this occasion, however, but from the British government. So ever since Edward the Third's orders back in the in the 1300s that Jersey should array men capable of bearing arms, or possibly even urged earlier, Jersey men had been turning up for militia duty.

Centuries of militia custom and tradition.

Had established this obligation and had been written down in the code of 1771 when Jersey codified much of its legal system.

The 1771 code had established the fundamental arrangements under which the militia were governed in 1873, and these were the militiash consists of six battalions of infantry, one regiment of artillery, one regiment of cavalry.

The whole of the island's male population was obliged to perform a militia duty. Youths from 13 to 17 must attend drill once per week, and men from 17 to 65 were bound to serve in the militia, drilling in the winter and taking 4 or 5 field exercises during the summer. By 1873, there had been some changes to the 1771 code, and that was that the cavalry had been long since disbanded and a small unit of mounted troopers existed in their place.

The artillery regiment had been disembodied and attached as batteries to each of the infantry regiments. Militia starting age had moved forward to 17, Grand parades were now being held in Snowburn's Bay, and the code of 1771 had been supplemented by the Reglament Paulley's Arsenal. Uh, this was after the central arsenals were built, uh, at that time in 1844. Some, however, in both Jersey and the UK held the view that these changes had just been tinkering with the system.

There was a belief, perhaps not widespread locally, that the Jersey militia needed more fundamental changes by the 1870s, 1870s, if it was going to be in a position to defend our island against external threats. Others in the island asked a more fundamental question. By 1870, what exactly or who exactly was that external threat? It had been very clear in the past who was threatening our island. The code of 1771 had been framed with a definitive purpose in mind, and that was to defend Jersey against the French or French invasion. The militia that served in 1778, when Jersey went to war, uh or when Britain went to war, France went to war, uh, in support of American colonists, colonists fighting in Britain.

He knew very well who their enemy was.

Those that helped defeat Baron derocourt in 1781 certainly harboured no illusions, and those that stood on defence of our coast right up to Napoleon's final defeat in 1815, fully understood who they were guarding against. After 1815, however, it started to become a little less clear. There were French military stirrings in the 1830s and 1940s.

They were building harbours in places such as Granville or extending harbours in Granville, uh, and Cherbourg and Saint Marlow. And that led to new towers and forts and uh a half finished harbour down at Saint Catherine's and of course the arsenals that I mentioned that needed the new regulations that were.

Uh, incorporated But the harbor's uh incomplete state today is a good a good example or a good pointer to what towards what was happening at the geopolitical level at that point.

Aside from being impractical to shelter, Royal Navy warships, by 1854, Britain and France were at war together. So the great Napoleon's nephew, Napoleon the Third was in power by this time and trying to avoid his uncle's mistake of making an enemy of Britain, charming Queen Victoria, as you see on the picture, helped this cause.

The two met several times and developed good personal relationships. But also going to war against a common enemy was a good sign of the thawing relations between these two very ancient adversaries. The Crimean War, which pitched Britain and France against the Russian Empire, is perhaps best known for the calamitous charge of the Light Brigade during the Battle of Balaclava. In Jersey, however, it could be recognised that the Crimean War. Was the point at which the thaw in our relationship with France really began to take hold, because in August 1855, for example, rather than preparing for battle with France, the militia were assembling in the Royal Square as part of local celebrations to celebrate, to mark a fate day for the French Emperor Napoleon the Third. So did this mean the need for the Jersey militia was diminishing? Uh, some islanders certainly uh began to feel so.

And over the next few years, a very public movement would start aimed at removing or disbanding the militia altogether. Those in power at the British War Office, however, felt that any such change was far too premature.

In fact, they felt the change should be in a different direction. The Jersey militia, according to the War Office, did not need disbanding. It needed modernising, along with the rest of the British Army. So Britain may have emerged victorious from the Crimean War, uh, but the British Army had been shown to have considerable frailties.

There was a recognisable need for reform. Several royal commissions between 1857 and 1870 carried out examinations of the British Army as a result, addressing matters such as discipline, recruitment, army officer appointment and promotion, and army structure. Now these are fundamental reforms designed to evolve the army from one that was capable of fighting the Napoleonic Wars 6060 years earlier to one capable of facing a modern enemy. Restructuring the army included a review of Britain's own part-time forces, its militia, which, unlike those of Jersey, were voluntary, not compulsory.

There was also a drive to make Britain's colonies er take responsibility for their own defence rather than rely on British garrisons.

This required the raising of efficient and effective local forces. So champion of reform was a chap called Edward Carson.

And it comes in, uh.

Conducted or ordered several reviews to take place of the Jersey militia.

Several reports were done between 1860, the last being in 1869, uh, before our date of 1873, which highlighted numerous numerous issues. Um, that combining infantry and artillery and regiments was an unsatisfactory arrangement. Recruitment along parochial lines led to uh unequal regimental strengths. They were far more in the Saint Helier Battalion than there was in the North Regiment, North West Regiment. Militia officers and non-commissioned officers lacked any real military experience, and the men received an insufficient level of drill.

The way exemptions were dealt with caused discontent. Those with money could buy themselves out of militia obligations. Commanding officers lacked power to punish those not turning up for duty. So having considered the situation, Cardwell decided the militia must be reformed.

If it was to take its place in a modernised British army, he therefore directed the lieutenant Governor to instruct the state's assembly to change the militia law.

Specific requirements were the active number, the number of active militiamen should be 1800, the four should be divided into one artillery regiment, and 3 infantry regiments. Training will begin at 16 with an obligation to serve to the age of 65. Men between 18 and 35 should be required to attend drill and musketry instruction for 14 days per year, plus time for target practise. The war office could oversee certain appointments, militia officers must gain experience with regular troops and pass examinations to gain promotion. And the commanding officers will be given new enforceable rules to address punishments, er address exemptions and award punishments. Unless the militia was modernised under a new militia law, Cardwell announced.

The British government would withdraw the money it paid towards the upkeep of our militia. Now perhaps Carlwell knew that er the threat to remove money from any good jerseymen is always going to sharpen the attention towards getting the job done.

So understandably, the state's assembly did not universally welcome the demanded changes, and they were demanded.

It smacked too much of British interference in local matters, echoing some of the sentiments from Sir Philip's speech. The new lieutenant Governor General Sir William Norcott was wary of forcing the matter, writing, uh, the question seems to be this, the states of themselves are unlikely to pass a law that will satisfy the home government. And the states will only under pressure, accept any laws the home government may propose. Actually, having examined the situation closely, the lieutenant Governor had some sympathy with the local views that perhaps Lord Cardwell's proposed changes did not take into account, didn't fully take into account local issues. For example, having a, a regular British Army sergeant Major, er, would be difficult when most of the rank and file spoke Grier. There was also a very strong view of of islanders, many islanders that compulsory militia service was just generally unfair.

Didn't have to do it in the UK. Why do we have to do it here? And there was a specific resistance to the increased duties that were being demanded by Cardwell. Petitions were sent to the local government and the UK government with plans or with a request to disband the militia altogether. Now, nevertheless, Cardwell insisted on the reforms must happen and the lieutenant governor instructed the states to pass a law, and it was the start of a three year battle of wills, really.

So after Cardwell decided the motion must reform in February 1874, the states agreed to consider reform, but further information requested what was needed and refused. In March that year, states referred the matter to a special committee. The War Office, in frustration, set a deadline saying you must take action by the first of October. The states adopted a special committee's report in 1874 which questioned some aspects of Lord Cardwell's proposed changes. And in February 1875, the War Office communicated its intention to withdraw the grant unless the states fully accept Lord Cardwell's reforms. Uh, and in February 1875, the states agreed to frame an act reforming the militia.

And in May that year, pass a law, um. Passed a new law of the militia, a new law of the militia, which was not strictly faithful to the proposals made by Lord Cardwell, it had been modified locally.

The War Office determines the new law is not satisfactory. Further changes must be made. The states passed an amended law on the law of the militia. The War Office in October 1876 rejects the new law, citing deficiencies and variations from Cardwell's original proposals. There was no getting out of this. Cardwell was going to have his way. In February 1877, the states passed a further amended law on the militia, which was accepted by the law of the War Office in May that year and becomes the 1877 militia militia law law superseding the code of 1779. Thank you.

So is that the end of it? Well, the law was enforced in 1877 and fundamentally reshaped the centuries old militia, and the changes were fundamental.

Natives of Britain and Jersey remained liable for militia service from 18 to 65. Lads aged 18 to 16 were obliged to be instructed and drilled. There was one artillery regiment. The artillery were brought back together at this point, drawn from recruits across the island, and 3 infantry regiments. The first West. Incorporating the old Northwest, southwest, and 3 quarters of the Saint Lawrence Battalion, the 2nd East Regiment incorporating the old North and East Regiments, the 3rd South Regiment incorporating the Saint Helier Battalion, and 1 quarter of the Saint Lawrence Battalion, and men would serve from the active militia from the age of 18 to at least 33. The government, the governor had discretion on how long they would serve, and men with the active militia would take part in drills at least 6 times per year. Now was the job done? Well, not quite.

Neither the lieutenant Governor nor the states, nor the islanders generally were happy with the new law, which had perhaps been forced through by Cardwell without sufficient attention. Uh, faced with further and even more vociferous petitions from islanders and protests from the public and concerns from the Lieutenant Governor, and 1879 commission examined a new law, examined the new law and proposed further changes.

So a new militia law came into came into power in January 1881. Was this the end? Well, no, unfortunately for Jersey and it's poor, I think very confused militia by now. The answer was no. New lieutenant governors wanted new lieutenant governors wanted more reform backed by war offices. For the next 20 years, militia law was the subject of considerable data and regularly discussed. Finally, in 1905, after considerable pressure, Jersey passed yet another new militia law, and it was the law that was in place in August 1914. So when war broke out, um, that year, uh, what Jersey did mobilise, and Jersey mobilised its militia at the beginning of the war, was a very modern force, a blend of infantry, artillery, engineers, medical troops, and it was a strong force, Lance, active militia, reserves over 4000 men.

It was well trained and well equipped and supported by the British and New Jersey governments, and it did its duty, very admirably between 1914 and 1918, guarding our island against any threat that may have uh been posed.

The malicious finest hour, well, I certainly one of them, certainly one of them.

And certainly it was the malicious peak and its watershed moment, because after the war to end all wars, the militia was downsized, a new law was passed in 18 1921, and eventually it became an all volunteer force in 1929.

Now these militia volunteers faithfully guarded our island uh between September and June 1940 and then bravely served in the UK until the war's end. After 1945 it decided no need for a militia in the modern war. Age and of course in the Cold War age and the militia then came in 1946, although subsequently revived by the territorial unit in 1988. The militia, the old militia was history. So why are we bothering to talk about it? Well, can we take, what can we take from this moment of local history that happened 150 years ago? Well, there's two points I'd like to leave with you.

The first relates to the modern day Socidejerziers, our society.

Like the militia of 150 years ago, it's an organisation facing considerable changes in the years ahead. Not from demanding British war office or invading French, thankfully, but from a changing rapidly changing external environment.

The militia of 1873 existed in the world greatly changed that from 150 years earlier. The world we live in today has changed immeasurably from one that the societies founded this organisation in 150 years ago. How much will that world change again, not just in the next 150 years, but perhaps in the next 15 years. We only have to look at the opportunities and threats. Presented by the development of things like artificial intelligence or AI, how will the Societe harness the extraordinary application, this extraordinary application, or become diminished as a result? So like the militia of 1873, the Societe will need to change in order to be fit to face the future, recognise opportunities and foresee and minimise threats. Now change is always a challenge and something that the majority of people actually don't enjoy. But that can happen because of an absence of change leadership. Most people are willing to be led through change and may even enjoy the experience. If they trust in the change that's happening.

Of course, in common with the militia of 1873, it's important we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so change does not mean abandoning the things that make the militia what it is today. The second point is to ask why the militias, the story of militias of Jersey militia in 1873, or indeed at any point in the organisation's long history matters today. Why bother exploring or explaining our older military history when more modern military history, with its jackboots, bunkers, deportations, and liberators, is so much more seductive. Well, for one thing, we know much less about the older history than the than the modern history.

The militia, for example, and, and, uh, we do not really understand the Jersey's iconic round towers, for example, compared with the bunkers of No Point.

I will, uh, Richard, I'm just on my final lines.

Uh, that's not a criticism of the amazing efforts we made to explore and explain our modern fortifications, more of appeal to look further back. The other thing is the relative importance to our island of its older military history compared with the modern. The militia was in existence for 600 years. A British army garrison was present for at least 200 years. Fort Region has been a hub, was a military hub for more than 100 years. These were long term factors in our history. Our military history influenced our landscape, the economy, the population, the language, the outlook, the very character of Jersey. I think it's a history worth defending.