The Brothers’ Cemetery, Rue des Frères

Condition Survey and Report

March 2012

The Brothers’ Cemetery, Rue des Frères

Condition Survey and Report

March 2012

Compiled by Dr Philip de Jersey

with Helen Glencross, Christopher Hughes, John Lihou and

Tanya Walls

2

Contents

Statement of Intent 3

1. Introduction 4

1.1 The location of the site 4

1.2 The early history of the Brothers’ Cemetery 6

1.3 Recent (post-1945) activity at the Brothers’ Cemetery 11

1.4 The current situation 12

2. The cemetery: survey 14

2.1 Survey techniques 14

2.1.1 Details of grading 15

2.2 Survey results 20

2.2.1 General remarks 20

2.2.2 Detailed analysis 25

3. Summary 33

Acknowledgements 35

References 35

Appendix 1 Example of completed recording sheet 36

3

Statement of Intent

This report seeks to provide an objective account of the

condition of the vaults and headstones in the Brothers’

Cemetery (Cimetière des Frères), in St Peter Port,

Guernsey, using guidelines published by English Heritage

and the Church of England. Its principal aim is to provide a

basis from which all interested parties will be able to further

their discussions about the future use of the cemetery.

4

1. Introduction

1.1 The location of the site

The Brothers’ Cemetery, or Cimetière des Frères, lies in the parish of St Peter Port,

Guernsey. It occupies a roughly rectangular plot (cadastre reference A114130000) of some

2,960m2, or approximately three-quarters of an acre (Fig. 1), in the north-western part of the

town of St Peter Port.

Fig. 1. The Brothers’ Cemetery (in red), St Peter Port. Other former parochial cemeteries are marked as St

(Strangers’ Cemetery) and Si (Sisters’ Cemetery); TC is the Town Church. The ‘new’ cemetery at Candie was

opened in 1831 (© Digimap).

The site is bounded to the south and partly on the west by the Rue des Frères, a narrow lane

which links the St Julian’s Avenue / Ann’s Place / Candie Road junction with Upland Road.

The eastern boundary is formed by Candie Road; on the north side is an apartment block

constructed c.2001 and on the west side a private road leading to a warehouse (Fig. 2). The

cemetery is accessed from the Rue des Frères.

5

Fig. 2. The Brothers’ Cemetery in relation to surrounding buildings and roads (© Digimap).

The ground within the cemetery drops almost ten metres from the north-west corner (between

43 and 44 metres above sea-level) to the south-east corner (34 metres above sea level; Fig. 3).

This slope, and the hill-wash it produces, has had a marked effect on the condition of many of

the vaults, which will be considered below (section 2.2.1).

Fig. 3. Contours (in metres) superimposed on the

Ordnance Survey map of 1898 (© Digimap).

6

1.2 The early history of the Brothers’ Cemetery

The earliest written records of the Brothers’ Cemetery date to the mid-sixteenth century,

when land formerly occupied by Franciscan friars was assigned to the nascent Elizabeth

College. The friars had reportedly left in 1536 or 1537 and the first assignment, in 1563,

included at least the southern part of the Cimetière des Frères (Hugo 1956, 142), along with

the Friar’s house – which was to become the new school house – at the junction of the Rue

des Frères and what is now the bottom of College Street. The plot of land occupied by the

cemetery seems to have functioned both as a graveyard for the Franciscans and as a garden,

since documentary sources refer to it as both a cimetière and a jardin.

In 1585 it was proposed that this ground might be used as a parochial cemetery, but the idea

was eventually dropped, perhaps because of the proximity of the new school. In 1629,

however, the proposal was revived following an outbreak of plague. The Actes des Etats of

26 August 1629 record that

The jurats met specifically to decide the means necessary for the lodging and burial of the bodies of

those whom it has pleased God to visit with the plague… the cemetery called the Cimetière des Frères,

which Thomas Blanche is at present using for a garden, will be used [to bury] those who have died of

the illness, everyone who has been found to have suffered [from it], regardless of title, reasons and

opposition to the contrary. (quoted in Lenfestey 2007, 11)

Thomas Blanche had acquired this ‘garden’ by 1616/7, when the Livre de Percharge for the

Fief Le Roi records that he had obtained it from a William Hichcoke (Rolleston 1926, 68;

Lenfestey 2007, 11). The legality of these titles or exchanges of title seems to have been

questionable, however, and essentially the lands abandoned by the Franciscans had simply

been absorbed into neighbouring properties with little or no formal legal process. It is unclear

exactly when the land was purchased by the Town Church following the jurats’

recommendation, or indeed whether the plague victims were in fact buried there, since in

1640 the heirs of Thomas Blanche are still recorded as owning the land (Lenfestey, op. cit.).

The committee which examined the state of Elizabeth College in 1824 considered that the

purchase took place in about 1651, but were unable to find documentary proof (de Havilland

1824, 28). The position is clearer by 1663, however, when the Livre de Percharge records the

Churchwardens of the Town Church as owning the Cimetière des Frères.

Whatever the precise date, the Brothers’ Cemetery seems to have been brought into intensive

use as a parochial cemetery during the middle years of the seventeenth century. The oldest

surviving monuments are dated to 1719, but there are evidently many dozens – if not

hundreds – of unmarked graves, some of which must predate the dated vaults. By 1780, the

cemetery was already described as ‘embarrassingly full’ (S. Carey Curtis, quoted by

Lenfestey 2007, 12), a situation which led to the development of the nearby Strangers’

Cemetery (Fig. 1) in the early 1780s. Nevertheless, burials continued to take place at the

Cimetière des Frères throughout the nineteenth century.

The ground within the cemetery walls was artificially raised on several occasions, in the late

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, creating the rather unnatural slope visible today (Fig. 4).

This prolonged the use of the graveyard, even after the opening of the new and considerably

grander cemetery at Candie in 1831.

7

Fig. 4. The Brothers’ Cemetery from the south-east. The granite retaining wall is 2.9 m high next to the

lamppost.

Perhaps because of this build-up of ground in the south-eastern portion of the cemetery, there

was considered to be enough space here to inter at least 375 pauper burials between 1869 and

1881 (Lenfestey 2006, 18), at a period when the Trustees of Candie Cemetery were refusing

to create any new vaults for paupers in their grounds. There is a large space devoid of

headstones or vaults in the south-east of the Brothers’ Cemetery, and it is tempting to suggest

that this area was the location of these burials; the Town Hospital Journal had identified this

as the area for paupers almost a century before, in April 1786 (quoted by Lenfestey 2007,

12). We should be cautious about assuming this to be the case, however, since the apparent

emptiness of this sector of the cemetery may be a reflection of mid-twentieth century

clearance, rather than a longstanding lack of any vaults or headstones (see p. 10, below).

In the second half of the nineteenth century the condition of the Brothers’ Cemetery evidently

began to cause some concern. There are occasional letters to the press from the 1870s

onwards, generally commenting on the neglect of the grounds – of all the parochial

cemeteries, not just the Brothers’ – although one writer (The Star, 8 March 1879) noted that

he could not be certain of the condition of the latter because it ‘is judiciously kept locked by

the authorities’. Four years later (The Star, 7 August 1883), another correspondent

complained of ‘the disgraceful manner’ in which the Brothers’ Cemetery was kept, having

attended an interment at which the pall bearers could barely keep their feet, owing to the

weeds ‘being over knee-deep’. At this stage, in contrast to the situation a few years later,

there appears to have been relatively little concern about the state of the tombs themselves.

It seems to have taken another decade before more concerted efforts were made towards the

improvement of the cemetery. In October 1893 the Rector and Churchwardens of St Peter

Port placed a notice in several editions of The Star, requesting that the owners of the tombs

see to their repair (Fig. 5a). This appeal perhaps fell on deaf ears, since less than a year later

another local paper – Le Bailliage – reported an account of the ‘morbid spectacle’ visible at

8

the Cimetière des Frères. The Star of 14 June 1894 picked up the story, noting that ‘the

details, though most lugubrious, must be given in order to convey the sentiment of horror…’:

The walk in the centre, we believe the only avenue in the Cemetery, will soon bring the visitor to a

deep vault, whose large covering slab is cracked right across, leaving an aperture of several inches in

width through which one is able to peer into the depth below – a partly decayed coffin meets the gaze,

and on which bricks, etc., have been dropped through the crack… The last vault, to which it is

necessary to draw attention, has through age, or wilfulness, had a portion of the lower end broken inwards, and the bricks in falling have broken open a coffin, the lid of which has swerved on one side

and revealed the body of a woman, evidently, whose features are most ghastly to look upon, and apt to

give weak-nerved persons a severe shock to the system… the body… is only a few feet away and lying

almost level with the surface of the ground.

Two days later (16 June 1894), a correspondent wrote to The Star confirming ‘all the

gruesome sights’ previously described:

The last vault I peered into gave me such a sickening feeling that I was unable to enjoy my food for the whole day as the blackened features of the tenant of this vault were continually coming before my

mental vision. As regards the bricks, etc., which have been thrown down in these tombs is also true,

and to think of the remains of loved ones, whose friends imagine are lying in peace, being made the

target for children, is dreadful. Requiescat in pace is evidently not the fate of these relics of humanity.

Fig. 5. Notices in The Star:

a (above), 19 October 1893; b (right), 29 February

1896; c (below), 1 September 1896.

9

Little immediate action seems to have been taken, perhaps because another factor then came

into play: the widening of the lower part of Candie Road. A Faculty of the Ecclesiastical

Court had been granted for this work, which would involve shaving off part of the Brothers’

Cemetery, as long ago as 1854, but for reasons unknown the work had never taken place (Fig.

5b). The meeting ‘held in the slipway to the lower entrance of Candie Grounds’ is described

in some detail in The Star of 5 March 1896:

The attention of the ratepayers was drawn to a number of flags (on posts driven into the ground) which

marked the proposed distance to cut into the ground of the Brothers’ Cemetery. The line of flags was

placed at a distance of about four or five feet from the present wall. The projected improvement had

been so planned that, although most of the present trees, several of which are dead, would have to come

down, only one vault would be touched, and even then it would be necessary to pull down but a portion

of it.

It was not known to whom the vault belonged. There was some debate about the possibility

of widening the road on the Candie Gardens side, rather than the cemetery side, and a

committee was formed to investigate further. Their deliberations and the subsequent

ratepayers’ meeting are reported in The Star of 2 April 1896, when it was decided to press

ahead with the original plan, to cut into the side of the cemetery. The Ecclesiastical Court

granted a Faculty in the following month, and on 17 June 1896, reported in The Star for the

following day, the States granted a sum of £250 for ‘the proposed amelioration of the Lower

Candie Road’.

The newspaper is silent on whether or not the work actually took place, but it is reasonable to

assume that the notice of the closure of Candie Road on 1 September 1896 (Fig. 5c) relates to

its commencement. Further confirmation is provided by ‘A Jubilee Dream’, published early

in 1900, in which a resident of Smith Street imagines a whole series of improvements to the

town, its roads and buildings. The writer dreams that

workmen had pulled down the lately erected wall of the old burial ground at the bottom of Candie

Road, and were now busily engaged in rebuilding it several feet further back. I noticed that they built

round the old chestnut tree which faces Ann’s Place, presumably out of deference to public sentiment

(The Star, 6 February 1900).

Presumably any bodies which were disturbed at this time were re-interred in Candie

Cemetery. It is just possible that the vault which was to be partially demolished has now been

located (see Fig. 21, below).

In May 1897, the Rector of St Peter Port was charged with producing a report on the best

means of ‘bringing to order’ the Brothers’ Cemetery. This was read at a ratepayers’ meeting

in September and reported in The Star (30 September 1897). The Rector, Revd Lee,

described a fairly ambitious scheme to remove all ‘ruinous or defaced’ monuments, ‘level all

mounds’ and clear away vegetation, after which the whole cemetery would be covered with a

layer of ‘gas lime’, and, once settled, entirely covered with gravel. The report was accepted

and ‘a credit of £200’ granted, from which the overseeing committee were to spend ‘only

what was necessary’. No further report appears in the newspaper, however, and the major

elements of the work evidently did not take place.

In the course of the ratepayers’ meeting, the Revd Lee commented that the vaults of the

Brothers’ Cemetery were ‘by no means full’, while the Senior Constable estimated that not

‘more than four graves were opened every year’. Whether or not space was available, the

popularity of the cemetery as a final resting place clearly diminished during this period, in

10

part no doubt because of the conditions described above, but also because of the competing

attractions of Candie and the Foulon Cemetery (opened in 1856). Only a handful of new

graves are recorded from the first half of the twentieth century.

It has proved difficult to locate images of the interior of the cemetery taken during this

period, but one postcard enlargement – dating to the early 1930s – provides a startlingly

different view of the conditions with the walls (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Enlargement from a Photo-Precision Ltd postcard of St Peter Port & Harbour, c.1932, showing the Brothers’ Cemetery from above and to the west. The path running up through the cemetery appears to be

gravelled, or otherwise surfaced at this time.

There appear to be dozens of graves, particularly headstones, which have simply vanished.

Although the photograph is not particularly clear, the foreground – to the west of the central

path – seems to be almost entirely covered by graves, as is most of the ground to the east of

the path – including the area which is now ‘empty’ and which, as we have previously seen,

has been suggested as the area for pauper burials. The image does perhaps go some way to

demonstrating why the condition of the cemetery became such a concern in the late

nineteenth century, and the contrast with today, or indeed even with a little over fifty years

ago (Fig. 7), is striking. At some point between c.1932 and 1958, it would appear that large

areas of the cemetery were almost completely cleared of graves, mostly headstones, leaving

only the 120 or so vaults and a few headstones visible today. No documentary record of this

activity has so far been discovered.

11

1.3 Recent (post-1945) activity at the Brothers’ Cemetery

The last known interment at the Brothers’ Cemetery took place in 1951 (Kreckeler 2008, 3).

There is a plaque on the north side of grave no. 56 recording the deaths of Peter Darracott in

1982 and his wife Doris Ross (in 1986), but they were not interred there. The cemetery is still

consecrated ground, however, and with the permission of the Constables of St Peter Port –

who now own and administer the land – it would technically be possible for those who have

family vaults in the cemetery to request burial there.

Fig. 7. The Brothers’ Cemetery from the south-west, February 1958 (© John David).

Part of the cemetery can be seen in a photograph taken in February 1958 (Fig. 7). Although

the main subject was the building of the new science laboratory in the grounds of Elizabeth

College, most of the south-eastern part of the cemetery is visible in the background. As

mentioned above, this presents a remarkable contrast with the scene only two or three

decades before (Fig. 6); this is the cemetery very nearly as it can be found today, though prior

to the decay which has now affected many of the individual tombs. The photograph records a

headstone immediately adjacent to vault no. 55 (on the centre left of the image) which is no

longer in situ today, although parts of it are probably among the broken pieces of stone lying

on top of that tomb. One of the group of vaults in the south-east corner, no. 117, has also

collapsed completely since this photograph was taken.

In the early 1980s, Mr David Kreckeler devoted many hundreds of hours to recording the

inscriptions on the tombs in the Brothers’ Cemetery. The transcriptions and associated

commentary were eventually published by the Family History Section of La Société

Guernesiaise in 2008. This is an extremely useful publication, of enormous benefit to the

current survey, not least because it has removed the need to record the inscriptions again. It

also provides the numbering system which has been followed for this survey.

12

In the 1990s more than fifty varieties of Cistus were planted in the cemetery by the Guernsey

branch of the National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens (NCCPG). Most

of these have since been moved elsewhere.

1.4 The current situation

The Brothers’ Cemetery has been neglected for most of the post-1945 period. The gates have

been locked for thirty years or more, preventing routine public access, and although the grass

has been mown and other minor gardening works have taken place, the monuments

themselves have received very little care or attention. A few have been repointed or had some

repairs made to the render, but on the whole they have been left to decay. The bush and tree

cover has enlarged considerably over the past twenty years, as evidenced by a comparison of

the Digimap air photographs of 1990 and 2009 (Fig. 8). This has not generally had a positive

impact on the condition of the graves.

Fig. 8. Air photographs from 1990 (left) and 2009 (right) (© Digimap).

In September 2011 the Constables of St Peter Port applied to the States of Guernsey

Environment Department for permission to erect a chain-linked fence inside the eastern and

southern boundary walls of the cemetery, in order to protect users of the cemetery from the

sheer drop into Candie Road. Permission was granted in October 2011 and the fence, and a

hedge on either side, were installed shortly afterwards.

In December 2011 the Constables then announced proposals to clear the Brothers’ Cemetery

of all its tombs, save for the Gosselin vault in the north-eastern corner of the graveyard, ‘with

a view to re-opening the Cemetery to the public for recreational purposes as a woodland

13

garden’. Their intentions were formally publicised through a notice in the Gazette Officielle,

published in the Guernsey Press of 28 December 2011 and repeated several times in

succeeding weeks. This notice provided details of a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Court, to be

held on 20 January 2012, at which the application of the Constables for a Faculty of the Court

would be considered. As the cemetery is still consecrated ground, the permission of the

Church would be required before any disturbance of the graves could take place. Some

further details of the Constables’ proposals were included in this notice:

‘with the sole exception of the Gosselin family vault situated in the north-eastern corner of the

Cemetery –

i) to remove all the vault lids, together with such side panels as are inscribed, and to stand them along

the western boundary wall of the Cemetery;

ii) to demolish and dispose of the remaining masonry, retaining any bricks or other elements which can

be re-used in the Cemetery; and iii) without disturbing the human remains buried there, to seal and fill in the graves with watered-in

granite dust followed by layers of sub-soil and top soil sown with grass seed’

At the meeting of the Ecclesiastical Court on 20 January 2012, objections to these proposals

were raised by some twenty-three people (Guernsey Press, 21 January 2012). The decision of

the Court was deferred until 10 February 2012. Shortly before that date, the Constables met

with the authors of this report to discuss possible ways forward, at which meeting we offered

to produce the detailed condition survey of the Brothers’ Cemetery which follows here. The

Constables’ application to the Ecclesiastical Court was withdrawn, pending these further

investigations.

14

2. The cemetery: survey

2.1 Survey techniques

The survey of the Brothers’ Cemetery has been carried out in accordance with guidelines

issued in November 2011 by English Heritage and the Church of England, in the document

Caring for Historic Graveyard and Cemetery Monuments (Odgers 2011). In their own words

(pp. 4-5), this provides

‘guidance and best practice on the assessment, planning and implementation of conservation work to

monuments… The purpose of conservation is to slow down the rate of decay, remove any causes of

structural instability and provide physical security while, at the same time, preserving as much as

possible of the historic significance and original material of the monument.’

The main areas of practical treatment are considered to be as follows (p. 4):

‘Emergency intervention – enclosing a monument within a barrier or structure to prevent public access

while further inspection, stabilisation and more detailed repair are undertaken

Repair – ranging from repointing open joints, grouting, surface stabilisation and treatment of individual

elements to complete dismantling and rebuilding

Cleaning – generally to be discouraged, as inappropriate techniques can cause damage’

The overall approach may be summarised as ‘one of understanding, assessing and carrying

out remedial works as the need for them becomes apparent – this will prevent more costly

conservation work later and also address any health and safety concerns.’

It is important to stress that the English Heritage/Church of England guidance does not at any

point assume that a monument is so damaged that it cannot be repaired. The options for

repair, cited above, include ‘complete dismantling and rebuilding’, while their grading system

(see below, Fig. 9) assumes ‘intervention as soon as possible’, followed by re-inspection after

five years, once repaired, for the most hazardous and/or unstable tombs. There is no

suggestion in these guidelines that a tomb or vault, even in very poor condition, should be

dismantled with no prospect of repair. The authors of this report are aware that this view may

not find favour with the Constables of St Peter Port, the owners of the Brothers’ Cemetery.

We have however followed this approach in the survey below, not least to ensure that we

maintain a consistent methodology in our work.

Fig. 9. English Heritage/Church of England guide for the prioritization of repairs.

15

The English Heritage publication supplies a pro forma recording sheet which has been used,

with minor modifications, for this survey. An example of a completed recording sheet is

shown in Appendix 1, below.

2.1.1 Details of grading

The system proposed by English Heritage and used for the survey of the Brothers’ Cemetery

consists of a reasonably straightforward division into four categories (Fig. 9), with category 1

representing the most severely damaged tombs, and category 4 those which are regarded as

stable and needing no intervention. In practice there are a few vaults which fall across more

than one category. This is particularly the case where a tomb may be fundamentally sound,

but have one small area of damage which would rank as category 1. In order to better

demonstrate the grading system used in this survey, examples of the four categories are

illustrated and briefly discussed on the following pages. The principal features of each

category may be summarized as follows:

Category 1: hazardous and/or unstable (immediate intervention required)

Tombs which have collapsed, or threaten to collapse, or have otherwise suffered

major structural damage. This category has been applied to all tombs which have a

void somewhere in the structure, even if the void is not large enough to allow human

access, but where the void exposes to some significant degree the interior of the tomb.

All category 1 tombs require attention – whether repair, consolidation and making

safe, or fencing off – before the cemetery could be opened to the general public.

Category 2: ongoing deterioration (intervention required in 2 – 5 years)

Tombs which are not presently hazardous or unstable, but where significant

deterioration has started or may start unless action is taken in the near future. This

may include joints separating, the loss of one or two bricks creating small voids,

cracks in lids and the like; also where vegetation is damaging the structure. These

tombs present no immediate risk to the visitor but could be hazardous if (for example)

they were vandalised.

Category 3: some decay but generally stable (intervention may be required in 5 years)

Tombs which have some minor faults – typically loss of render or pointing, or small

cracks not affecting the structure – which should be monitored and in due course

repaired. Category 3 tombs present no risk to the general public but would benefit

from cosmetic upgrading.

Category 4: stable (no intervention required)

Tombs which are structurally sound, with only minor repointing or repairs to render

desirable, but not essential. Some attention to intrusive vegetation growth may be

necessary. These tombs present no risk to the visitor.

16

Category 1: hazardous and/or unstable

Fig. 10a. The east end of vault

no. 12. This tomb is clearly in a

hazardous and unstable

condition; the south side leans

outwards, most of the east side

has been removed, the east end

of the lid has been broken and

the vault itself is open to the

elements. This falls clearly into

category 1, in need of urgent

attention.

Fig. 10b. A more complex

situation for the three tombs 52,

53 and 54, which share a single

base. The left and middle vaults

are fundamentally sound, but the right hand vault (no. 54) clearly

ranks as hazardous. The railings

are also unstable and thus the

group as a whole would rank as

category 1, although the

individual vaults 52 and 53

would rank as category 3.

Fig. 10c. Tomb no. 60 from the

south-east. This ranks as

category 1, since it has a void

beneath the south face, which

renders it hazardous. Despite the sycamore growing up through its

east end, it is not unstable, and

with the void filled and the tree

killed it would rank as category 2

or 3. The tree has become such

an integral part of the structure,

however, that it cannot

realistically be removed. The

condition of the railings provides

a further complication.

17

Category 2: ongoing deterioration (intervention within 2 – 5 years)

Fig. 11a. The south face of tomb

no. 28. Although there are

elements in need of fairly urgent

repair, the vault as a whole is not

currently hazardous or unstable.

Intervention within 2-5 years –

specifically the repair of joints

which are beginning to separate

– should prevent this from

becoming a category 1 tomb.

Fig. 11b. Tomb no. 57, south

side. There is a small hole in the

foundations towards the south-east corner. Overall the vault is

in good condition, but the

damage in the south-east corner

lowers its overall rating to

category 2. This would require

only minor remedial work to

transform into a category 4.

Fig. 11c. The east face of tomb

no. 92. Although there is an

obvious void, the interior is not

accessible (and is full of

vegetation) and the walls and the

cover stone are not unstable.

This is a clear example of a

category 2 tomb.

18

Category 3: some decay but generally stable (possible intervention in five years)

Fig. 12a. The east face of tomb

no. 56. There is some minor

damage to the foundations on the

south-eastern corner, but the

interior of the vault is not visible

or accessible and the tomb as a

whole is stable. This is a clear

example of a category 3 tomb.

Fig. 12b. The south face of tomb

no. 4. The vault is structurally

sound but there is minor damage

to the upper south-west corner,

which should be monitored and repaired in due course.

Fig. 12c. The lid of tomb no. 81

has been slightly dislodged, but

it is not unstable. The walls of

the tomb are sound. The vault

ranks as category 3 because of the ivy growth, which needs

attention.

19

Category 4: stable, no intervention required

Fig. 13a. The west face of tomb

no. 79. The render is intact, all

faces are stable and the lid is

squarely placed. No intervention

required.

Fig. 13b. Tomb no. 88 from the

south. There are a few weathered

points on the monument and a

little weed growth to be

addressed, but the tomb is

wholly stable and in need only of

monitoring again in five years.

As indicated above, there are a few rather more problematic

tombs which combine features of both the ‘best’ and ‘worst’

categories. A case in point is tomb no. 67. The structure is

sound, the render is intact on all sides and the lid is well-

positioned and stable. All these features would suggest a

category 4 ranking, but there is a void at the base of the

southern side (Fig. 14). As all open voids such as this are

ranked as category 1, or hazardous – however difficult it might be to gain access to the vault,

either accidentally or deliberately – it could be argued that the tomb as a whole should be

ranked as 1. In this case, however, the overall quality of the monument is such that we have

retained a category 4 rating, with an acknowledgment that there are ‘spots’ of category 1

within the structure. This dual rating has also been indicated on the survey map in section

2.2.2, as shown in the diagram here.

20

Fig. 14. Tomb no. 67 from the south, showing void in the foundations.

2.2 Survey results

The condition survey of the Brothers’ Cemetery was carried out between 14 – 20 February

2012, by the authors of this report. Weather conditions were generally overcast, with the

exception of bright sunshine on 20 February when most of the record photographs of each

tomb were taken.

2.2.1 General remarks

Some general observations on the cemetery may be useful before we consider the vaults and

headstones in more detail. As mentioned above (Fig. 3), the ground drops some ten metres

from the north-west to the south-east. The effect of hill-wash on this slope is such that many

of the vaults show a build-up of soil against their northern and western faces, and a

concomitant loss of soil from the southern and eastern faces. This frequently has the effect of

exposing the brick foundations on the down-slope, as for example on tomb no. 105 (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15. Tomb no. 105 from

the south-west, showing the

build-up of soil against the western face and the erosion

of soil away from the

foundations on the southern

face.

21

In some cases this process has been exacerbated by the tree cover, notably in the area

between tombs nos 63, 64, 69 and 81, which is dominated by a large holly tree (Fig. 16). This

has prevented the development of a cohesive layer of turf, while the bare soil in turn has

become more vulnerable to erosion by rainfall. In this case it may be desirable to consider

reducing the extent of the holly tree.

Fig. 16. Exacerbation of hill-wash processes beneath the canopy of a holly tree. The foundations of tomb no. 69,

on the right, have been particularly badly exposed.

The vegetation in the cemetery in general needs careful monitoring. As seen above (Fig. 8),

the tree cover has increased considerably in the past twenty years. The attractiveness of the

trees needs to be balanced against any actual or potential damage they may cause to the

tombs. The more low-lying cover – typically brambles, buddleia, ivy and privet – is, in the

short-term, potentially more damaging to individual vaults and there is a strong case to be

made for its removal as a matter of urgency.

As shown by many of the illustrations above, by far the dominant form of memorial in the

Brothers’ Cemetery is the box vault, of which there are 120 examples. These are typically

two metres or a little less in length and just under a metre wide, although in some cases the

area they cover is extended by railings or more substantial foundations. The Harvey/Neve

vaults (nos 85 and 86), for example, are both 200 cm long (lid length) and 103 or 104 cm

wide, but they have been set on a base of 243 cm x 240 cm, or in other words almost

precisely 8’ by 8’. While there is evidently some variation from tomb to tomb, it seems likely

that other standard imperial measurements – e.g. 3’ 6” for width, or 6’ 6” for length – are

concealed by our metric equivalents.

The sides of these structures, and the vaults below ground – where visible – are almost

always of brick. The brick above ground was generally either rendered or coated in a type of

cement wash, although in some cases it appears as though no coating of any sort was applied.

The position of the tomb, the effects of ivy and other plant growth, and the skill with which

22

the render or wash was applied has greatly influenced its preservation today; some vaults

have render virtually intact on all sides, while others have just bare brickwork.

The brickwork in the interior of those vaults which are currently open to inspection appears

to be surprisingly sound. There is little or no sign of below ground-level structural damage in

any of the open tombs, even those next to large trees. There is some moss and fern growth, as

might be expected (Fig. 17), but the more invasive plant growth is evidently confined to those

parts of the monuments receiving direct sunlight. One box vault (no. 89) has had its interior

north face hollowed out by less than one brick-width (Fig. 18), presumably to accommodate a

coffin which was fractionally too wide for the vault.

Fig. 17. The interior of tomb no. 54. It was common

practice to whitewash the interior walls of the vault prior to an interment, as may be seen here on the lower levels of

brickwork. This vault is at least four metres deep.

Fig. 18. The inner north face

of tomb no. 89, hollowed out

perhaps to accommodate a

large coffin.

23

The lids of the box vaults are almost without exception formed of Portland stone, generally

between 8 and 12 cm (3 or 4 inches) thick. The edges of the lids are usually chamfered or

rounded, although there are one or two exceptions which are more roughly finished (Fig. 19).

Repairs have been made to several lids, perhaps following damage when they were lifted to

allow a coffin to be placed in the vault (Fig. 20).

Fig. 19. Unusually thick and

roughly finished lid on tomb no.

9.

Fig. 20. The lid of tomb

no. 102 has broken twice,

and in each case been

repaired with bronze

clamps (one of which is

now missing).

One Portland stone lid – presumably from a box vault – which had not been recorded by

David Kreckeler was identified in the south-eastern part of the cemetery, immediately east of

tomb no. 119 (and hence labelled tomb no. 119A). This had been brought to light by the

recent planting of the boundary hedge in this area. It raises the question of how many more

structural elements may be concealed just below the ground surface; there appears, for

example, to be another unrecorded vault immediately north of tomb no. 97, visible from the

lower entrance to Candie Gardens (Fig. 21) but almost undetectable from within the cemetery

itself. Kreckeler (2008, 3) has previously drawn attention to a report in The Comet of 28

October 1850, which records the discovery of a headstone dated to 1736, ‘recently dug up in

24

the Brethrens burial ground from the depth of 4 or 5 feet’, and other previously unrecorded

fragments of headstones were identified at various locations within the cemetery during this

survey.

Fig. 21. The east end of

tomb no. 97 (on the left)

and – just visible to its

right – what appears to

be the brickwork of an

otherwise unrecorded

vault. This may be the

tomb which was partially

demolished in the

widening of Candie

Road in 1896 (see p. 9).

Fig. 22. Headstone no. 3, set in concrete

against the west wall.

There are nominally thirteen headstones in the Brothers’ Cemetery, although only three of

these (nos 20, 30 and 107) are in situ. Most of the remainder (nos 103, 125-132) are laid flat

along the eastern edge of the cemetery, above Candie Road. Five of these are complete and

could in theory be re-erected, although no record exists of their original location. The

thirteenth and final headstone (no. 3) has been set into concrete against the western wall of

the cemetery; the two upper pieces are lying on the ground in front of it (Fig. 22). This

headstone could be reassembled at this position, although again its original location is

unknown.

25

In addition to the 120 box vaults and the thirteen headstones, there are two further tombs in

the Brothers’ Cemetery which may conceal vaults but which are of unusual form (Fig. 23);

neither is dated.

Fig. 23a. Tomb no. 96,

approximately 120 cm in length

and 60 cm wide.

Fig. 23b. Tomb no. 121, measuring 202 cm in length and 68 cm in

width; the sculpture at the west end

stands 76 cm high.

2.2.2 Detailed analysis

Full details of the condition category assigned to each tomb are appended to the end of this

section, and a short summary of these results will be provided here. Categories have been

assigned to 126 tombs in total: the 120 box vaults, the two anomalous ‘vaults’, and the four

headstones (nos 3, 20, 30 and 107) which are standing upright (whether or not in their

original positions). The nine headstones or parts of headstones laid flat along the eastern edge

have not been graded.

The results are summarized in Fig. 24. There are thirty tombs (23.8%) ranked as category 1,

or in other words mostly hazardous or unstable. The smallest category is 2, for which there

are seventeen records (13.5%); these are the tombs which are generally stable, but which will

need attention within the next two to five years. Thirty-one tombs (24.6%) have been

26

identified as category 3: generally stable, but with some cosmetic upgrading required.

Finally, there are 48 tombs, or 38.1%, ranked as category 4: stable, with no intervention

currently required.

Fig. 24. Number of vaults for each condition category (1: worst, 4: best)

There is no obvious pattern to the distribution of the four categories across the cemetery (Figs

25-26). In some cases the close proximity of tombs (e.g. nos 19, 21 and 22) appears to have

had a beneficial effect, protecting some aspects of the vaults from the elements; but there are

other cases (e.g. nos 70, 73-75) where the opposite has happened, and damage on one or two

tombs has affected others in the immediate vicinity. The maps do help to highlight particular

areas which could be targeted for future work, a possibility which will be considered in the

final chapter, below.

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4

category

27

Fig. 25. Categorization of tombs in the northern half of the Brothers’ Cemetery.

Grave numbers are as used by Kreckeler (2008).

28

Fig. 26. Categorization of tombs in the southern half of the Brothers’ Cemetery. Grave numbers are as used by Kreckeler (2008), with the addition of no. 119A.

29

Detailed analysis of grave condition

V: vault, H: headstone. The main surname and the earliest date on the grave are given, where known.

The original condition reports are archived at Guernsey Museum, where they may be consulted on request.

Photographs of every face and the lid of each tomb, plus other points of interest, are also available in the

archive.

no. type surname date grade comments

1 V Chepmell - 4 bushes recently planted too close to S face

2 V Mollet 1835 3 weeding and minor repointing required

3 H Whitehair 1916 2 broken in three; not hazardous or unstable

4 V Dobrée 1788 3 a few dislodged bricks; repointing required

5 V Priaulx 1803 4 sound 6 V Priaulx 1807 3 foundations partially exposed; cemetery wall

above W end requires repair

7 V Grut 1811 1 open vault with rusted railings

8 V Tupper 1779 4 sound

9 V Carey 1782 1 risk of collapse of very heavy lid

10 V Le Ray 1768 3 minor repointing and weeding required

11 V - - 4 sound; minor repointing and weeding required

12 V Dobrée 1786 1 hazardous; rebuilding of S and E walls required

13 V Dobrée 17?? 3 weeding and minor repairs required

14 V Saltmarsh 1808 3 mostly sound but lid needs repositioning, some

rendering required 15 V Anquetil 1851 4 sound, some attention to exposed foundations

16 V Lukis 1826 3 brickwork on west end needs attention

17 V Le Lievre 1856 4 sound; minor repointing required

18 V Le Mottée 1821 1 hazardous; rebuilding of S and W walls required

19 V Corbin 1836 4 sound; minor repointing required

20 H Price - 4 sound

21 V Price - 4 sound; minor brickwork required

22 V Corbin 1766 4 sound; minor repointing required

23 V de Garis (Corbin) 1808 3 a few bricks missing; not hazardous or unstable

24 V Mauger 1805 3 some loose elements; repointing and weeding

required

25 V Albery 1790 1 collapsed, in need of major repair/consolidation 26 V La Serre 1774 3 stable but brickwork needs repair; affected by

tomb 25 to N

27 V La Serre 1774 3 minor brickwork and repointing required

28 V Mauger 1811 2 base sound, but joints opening and some repairs

needed

28A V Priaulx 1719 2 soft brick, hole needs filling, render required

29 V Le Marchant 1812 4 sound, one loose brick

30 H Le Pelley 1722 4 sound

31 V Le Pelley 1900 4 sound

32 V Le Pelley 1767 3 loose bricks need attention, weeding required

33 V Le Pelley 1803 3 sound but S face needs rendering 34 V Le Pelley 1719 3 stable but brickwork on E face needs attention

35 V Bishop 1829 4 sound

36 V Collings - 3 cracked lid; repointing and weeding required

37 V Le Mottée 1843 4 sound; minor repointing and weeding required

38 V Mansell - 1 hazardous, lid broken and vault open; in need of

repair or consolidation

39 V Tupper 1809 1 hazardous; lid displaced and N side missing; in

need of repair or consolidation

40 V Saumarez 1795 3 stable; one loose brick, lid cracked

41 V Le Cocq 1800 4 sound, minor repointing required

42 V Desperques 1876 1 SW corner requires rebuilding

30

43 V Le Marchant 1793 1 mostly sound but W end needs rebuilding; bush

to E should be cut back

44 V Brouard 1876 3 sound but minor repairs necessary

45 V Bonamy 1822 4 sound

46 V Vardon 1810 2 vault mostly sound, but base badly disrupted by

buddleia in need of urgent removal 47 V Collings Naftel 1826 1 hazardous and unstable; in need of repair or

consolidation

48 V Lauga (Maingay) 1825 1 individual elements sound but coming apart at

joins; in need of repair, removal of tree remains

49 V Le Mesurier 1792 3 mostly sound, a few bricks missing and crack to

be monitored

50 V Le Mesurier 1797 4 sound, minor repointing required

51 V Le Mesurier 1779 4 sound, minor repointing required

52 V Lukis - 1 loose elements in need of consolidation, mostly

on base; vault sound

53 V Lukis - 1 loose elements in need of consolidation, mostly

on base; vault sound 54 V Mansell - 1 loose elements in need of consolidation, base

and vault; W face collapsed

55 V Ahier 1838 1 badly damaged although not hazardous/unstable;

in need of repair or consolidation

56 V Hinch (Le Patourel) 1816 3 mostly sound, repairs required to SE corner

57 V Moullin (Brouard) 1830 2 mostly sound, but hole in SE corner needs repair

58 V Rynd (de Carteret) 1847 4 sound, minor works to render required

59 V Le Marchant 1831 4 sound

60 V Maingy (Carey) 1809 1 badly disrupted by tree, although mostly stable;

void on S face needs filling

61 V Dobrée (de Havilland) 1803 3 mostly sound, minor brickwork required 62 V De Havilland (Lihou) 1816 2 mostly sound but some brickwork required and

consolidation of foundations on S and E faces

63 V Lauga 1809 3 mostly sound, some inaccessible holes in

brickwork to be repaired

64 V Lainé 1817 4 sound, minor repointing required

65 V Dobrée 1847 3 sound, some render required

66 V Reserson (Bonamy) 1766 3 sound, some repointing required

67 V Carey 1782 4 (1) all sound save for voids in S foundations

68 V Martel 1804 4 sound; crack in lid needs monitoring

69 V Du Rozel 1791 1 hazardous and unstable; in need of repair or

consolidation

70 V Mauger 1838 1 hazardous, open vault; in need of repair or consolidation

71 V Allez 1827 4 sound, but bush at W end needs removal

72 not used

73 V Tupper 1813 1 NW corner needs rebuilding, other minor

brickwork required

74 V Wood (Maingy) 1823 1 hazardous and unstable, in need of repair or

consolidation

75 V Brock 1800 1 hazardous and unstable, in need of repair or

consolidation

76 V Lihou 1807 2 repair needed at NE corner, otherwise mostly

sound 77 V Mourant 1807 1 vault structure sound but lid broken and in need

of repair

78 V Moullin 1827 2 mostly sound but S face needs weeding and

render, void at E end needs filling

79 V Moullin 1841 4 sound; minor repairs to foundations on E side

80 V Brouard 1878 3 mostly sound but render is cracking from interior

plant growth, to be addressed

81 V Le Lievre 1830 3 sound but plant growth needs attention

31

82 V Digman 1811 3 lid tipped off to S, but structure sound

83 V de Garis 1800 4 sound, minor repointing required

84 V Parker 1807 4 sound, some weeding desirable

85 V Harvey 1821 4 sound, some weeding desirable

86 V Harvey (Neve) 1761 4 sound, intrusive buddleia needs removing

86A V Le Marchant (Dobrée) 1827 4 sound, minor repointing desirable 87 V Goodwin 1808 3 sound, some render and repointing required

87A V Carre 1790 1 hazardous and unstable; in need of repair or

consolidation

88 V Durand 1804 4 sound, minor repointing desirable

89 V Le Lievre 1839 1 hazardous and unstable; in need of repair or

consolidation

90 V Le Marchant 1813 3 sound, but tomb 89 to S is a concern

91 V Gosselin 1775 3 mostly sound but railings need attention and

vegetation should be cleared

92 V Brock - 2 E end needs repair, but not hazardous/unstable

93 V Brock - 2 lid slightly unstable, some brickwork needs

repair 94 V de Jersey 1808 4 sound; neighbouring tree needs monitoring

95 V de Lancey 1805 1 sound but one third of lid missing

96 V? - - 4 unusual low-lying tomb, sound

97 V Dobrée 1813 3 cracks in S side may require attention; monitor

newly-planted hedge, which is too close

98 V de Havilland 1821 4 sound; minor repointing and weeding required

99 V de Havilland 1813 4 sound; repointing required

100 V Colborne 1825 4 sound; minor repointing required

101 V Mansell (Lefebvre) 1805 3 sound; crack in W face to be repaired

102 V Gardner (Lamble) 1811 4 sound; minor repointing required

103 H Burrow 1757 N/A bottom half only present; recently moved 104 V Metcalfe 1828 4 sound; minor repointing desirable

105 V Harris 1774 4 sound

106 V Estienne 1736 4 sound; minor repointing desirable

107 H Langdon 1917 4 slightly tilted but sound

108 V Babden (Ellison) 1810 4 sound, minor repointing required

109 V Westwood 1842 4 sound, minor rendering and weeding required

110 V Maingy 1823 2 minor rebuilding at NW corner, otherwise sound

111 V Gunn (MacDonald) 1823 4 sound, minor repointing desirable

112 V Le Lievre 1820 4 sound, some render to be replaced

113 V Lihou 1835 1 SE corner needs rebuilding, otherwise sound

114 V Grut 1844 4 sound

115 V Brouard (Berne) 1844 1 hazardous; W end needs rebuilding 116 V Byng 1795 2 joins separating, lid cracked; needs attention

117 V Thomson 1795 1 collapsed downslope; probably stable as is but

needs repair or further consolidation

118 V Marshall (Drummond) 1799 1 hazardous; S face fallen outwards; needs repair

or consolidation

119 V Cary (Rougier) 1823 2 railings rusty and some loose; joints starting to

separate, lid skewed; needs attention soon

119A V - - 4 vault lid exposed by recent planting

120 V - - 2 mostly sound but starting to separate; needs

attention soon

121 V? - - 2 unusual low-lying vault; some loose elements and non-hazardous void to be filled

122 V De Lisle (Le Marchant) 1803 2 mostly sound but joint starting to separate, lid

cracked and render lost; needs attention soon

123 V MacDonald 1795 1 S faced bowed, some bricks missing; likely to

become more unstable soon

124 V - - 2 lid cracked, sides mostly stable; needs attention

soon to avoid becoming category 1

125 H Pilsford 1840 N/A upper part of headstone, now laid flat

32

126 H Brouard 1766 N/A complete headstone, laid flat; could be re-erected

127 H - - N/A complete headstone, laid flat; could be re-erected

128 H - - N/A fragments, laid flat

129 H - - N/A complete headstone, laid flat; could be re-erected

130 H J.H. 1854 N/A complete headstone, laid flat; could be re-erected

131 H E.G.P. 1827 N/A fragment plus a complete headstone, laid flat; could be re-erected

132 H - - N/A fragments, laid flat

33

3. Summary

This survey has attempted to provide an objective assessment of the condition of some 126

graves which survive in situ, in the Brothers’ Cemetery, St Peter Port. Using the guidelines

established by English Heritage, in consultation with the Church of England, we have

identified thirty tombs (23.8%) which are in need of urgent attention; seventeen (13.5%)

which require attention in the near future; thirty-one (24.6%) which are in need of only minor

repair work; and forty-eight (38.1%) which are currently sound and without need of any

physical intervention.

The primary purpose of this survey has been to provide this information, rather than to

examine in detail what may happen next. However, we consider that it is worth highlighting

some of the possible implications of the survey for future work.

If the goal is to make the cemetery accessible to the general public – in the same manner as

Candie Cemetery, which is locked overnight – then it is clear that the condition of the thirty

tombs graded as category 1 will have to be addressed before this can be considered, simply

because of the hazardous state of some of them. Not all the category 1 tombs are equally

hazardous, however, and there are some which could be made safe with a relatively small

amount of work. Tomb no. 43 (Fig. 26) is a case in point: the west end is open, but the

structure is still stable, and with the replacement of approximately twenty bricks in the west

wall, this tomb would be made safe and could be regraded as category 4.

Fig. 27. The west end of tomb no. 43.

Other category 1 vaults are in a much more dangerous condition, such as tomb no. 47 (Fig.

28). Repair of this tomb would require the removal of the intrusive buddleia on its northern

face, followed by the temporary removal of the heavy Portland stone lid, the rebuilding of

three of the four sides and parts of the fourth, and then reinstatement of the lid. We have

deliberately sought not to make any value judgements on the feasibility of repair of

individual tombs in this report, but one possibility for the next stage in this consultative

process would be to examine the thirty category 1 tombs in detail, identifying those which

could be made safe through a ‘quick fix’, such as tomb no. 43, and those like tomb no. 47,

34

which would need a longer and much more ambitious programme of work. This might also

provide the opportunity to identify whether there are tombs which all interested parties agree

are beyond repair. It could be argued, for example, that tomb no. 47 should have what

remains of its walls reduced to ground level, and the lid then lowered onto the brick

foundations. The maps presented above (Figs 25-26) may also be useful in identifying

particular areas of the cemetery which could be prioritized for attention, rather than just

single tombs.

Fig. 28. Tomb no. 47

from the south-west.

At the opposite extreme in terms of condition, this report has also identified 48 tombs ranked

as category 4, and a further 31 as category 3, in need of only minor repair or upgrading. This

means that 79 graves, or almost two-thirds of the cemetery total, can be regarded as stable

and in no imminent danger of decay. These tombs simply need to be monitored, to ensure that

minor repairs take place before any serious damage sets in.

It is beyond the remit of this report to suggest exactly who should implement a programme of

repairs, or how sponsorship or other assistance might be obtained. However it is fair to say

that the authors are keen to give this further consideration, and we have already obtained

offers of help from interested parties. We trust that in association with the Constables of St

Peter Port we may be able to develop a scheme by which the Brothers’ Cemetery is once

again made publicly accessible, without the loss of what for many is its principal interest: the

vaults of Guernsey men and women of previous generations.

35

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Constables of St Peter Port for giving us access to the Brothers’

Cemetery in order to complete this survey. Gillian Lenfesty has generously shared her

unpublished research on the St Peter Port cemeteries with us, and Michael Deane and John

David kindly provided historic photographs. We are also very grateful to David Kreckeler,

whose work has been invaluable, not least his foresight in recording the tomb inscriptions in

the early 1980s; after another thirty years of weathering and erosion, the task of recording

these details would have been considerably more difficult and time-consuming.

References

de Havilland, T.F., 1824. Enquiry into the present state and condition of Elizabeth College, at

Guernsey (Guernsey, Mauger).

Hugo, T.H.M., 1956. Elizabeth College, Guernsey. Some notes on its lands and buildings.

Transactions of La Société Guernesiaise XVI/2, 141-50.

Kreckeler, D., 2008. The Brothers’ Burial Ground 1719 – 1948 (Guernsey, La Société

Guernesiaise Family History Section).

Lenfestey, G., 2006. A history of Candie Cemetery, St Peter Port (unpublished MS).

Lenfestey, G., 2007. A history of the cemeteries in the town and parish of St Peter Port

(unpublished MS).

Odgers, D., (ed.) 2011. Caring for historic graveyard and cemetery monuments (English

Heritage).

Rolleston, W., 1926. Elizabeth College, 1563-1824. Transactions of La Société Guernesiaise

1926, 62-77.

36

Appendix 1: example of condition report

37