In the spring sunshine Sark looks sublime. The stone cottages of its 600
inhabitants look out across headlands resplendent in yellow gorse to a deep
blue sea. Lambs frolic in lush green meadows. The paths are flanked by banks
of wild flowers. The peace is disturbed only by the odd tractor or
horse-drawn cart trundling along the unpaved lanes of this tiny car-free
island that the Victorian poet Algernon Charles Swinburne called a “small
sweet world of wave-encompassed wonder”.
How appearances deceive. Sark today is anything but serene. It has been rent
asunder by a conflict between two billionaire newspaper magnates who want to
democratise the island and are used to getting their own way, and supporters
of the island’s feudal old guard, who fear that the Sark they love is being
swept away. The dispute has set neighbour against neighbour and destroyed
the sense of community that was once the island’s hallmark. “I’ve lived here
30 years and never known the mood so bitter and rancorous,” says Paul
Armorgie, a hotelier and member of Sark’s parliament, the Chief Pleas.
The postman has delivered ump-teen lawyers’ letters accusing the recipients of
defamation, gross misrepresentation and other sins. A monthly “newspaper”
with a mystery editor savages Sark’s leading citizens. The new island hall
has been asked to return a £100,000 donation.
Many Sarkees no longer dare openly to speak their mind. “I would ask that you
excuse my anonymity as livelihoods can be ruined by lifting one’s head above
the parapet,” said a typical e-mail sent to The Times. Another
wished The Times luck “in trying to understand . . . the malice and
hostility rife on an island where one would expect people to be enjoying a
good life”.
At the heart of this maelstrom are Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, the
owners of the Ritz Hotel andTelegraph newspapers, who live in the
mock-Gothic castle they built on Brecqhou, an even tinier island that is
separated from Sark by a few yards of churning water but falls under its
jurisdiction.
Supporters of the reclusive 73-year-old twins insist that they are fighting to
liberate Sark from the oppressive feudal regime that has governed it for the
past 450 years, and are generously pumping millions of pounds into the
island to revive its sagging economy. “They are two good, old-fashioned
gentlemen in their conduct and business dealings who have the island’s
welfare at heart,” says Kevin Delaney, an Essex man who manages their
interests in Sark.
To other Sarkees, however, the Barclays are tycoons who brook no opposition
and are using their vast wealth to take over Sark. “They are two powerful
men who will stop at nothing to gain control of the island,” says Peter
Stisted, a retired farm manager from Somerset who is one of their most vocal
critics.
The Barclays’ battle with Europe’s last feudal regime started almost the
moment that they bought Brecqhou in 1993. They were forced to pay a
“treizième” of £179,000 – a thirteenth of the purchase price – to the
Seigneur of Sark whose distant predecessor, Helier de Carteret, was granted
the right to the island in perpetuity by Elizabeth I in 1565.
They also found themselves bound by a law of primogeniture obliging them to
bequeath Brecqhou to the elder brother’s eldest son. “The more Sir David and
Sir Frederick found out about it the less they like feudalism,” said
Jennifer McDermott, their London lawyer. They decided to fight for “modern,
transparent, open democracy”.
The Barclays took Sark to the European Court of Human Rights. The island
backed down on primogeniture, but the genie was out of the bottle. The
island and its Whitehall overseers realised that the feudal system breached
the European Convention in numerous ways. Sark’s “serfs” were hardly
clamouring for change, but the Barclays embarked on a long campaign to turn
Sark into a democracy.
In London last week the Privy Council finally approved a Bill that will see a
Chief Pleas of landowners replaced by a 28-member assembly elected by
universal suffrage in December. The Barclays were still not happy, however.
They immediately requested a judicial review because the Seigneur and the
unelected Seneschal – the Chief Pleas president who doubles as the island’s
judge – will retain considerable powers.
The Seigneur is Michael Beaumont, 80, an amiable and slightly bumbling former
aircraft engineer who inherited the title in 1974. The Seneschal – appointed
by Mr Beaumont – is Lieutenant-Colonel Reg Guille, 66, a native Sarkee and
ramrod-stiff ex-soldier who was appointed MBE after the Falklands War. These
improbable “despots” both argue that Sark wanted the minimum change
necessary to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, and that
the new Chief Pleas, not the Barclays, should decide whether to curtail
their powers.
The Barclays disagree. Their spokesmen contend that the Seigneur and Seneschal
could easily manipulate an inexperienced new assembly, and that islanders
with few statutory protections fear openly to criticise their feudal masters
lest they lose their homes or jobs. “A cosy, self-serving inner circle
largely dominates the island. If you play by its rules, fine. If you resist
it generally you are ostracised,” Mr Delaney says.
Last year, in the midst of the acrimonious constitutional debate, the Barclays
suddenly started buying up large swaths of Sark. They or their
representatives now own nearly 20 per cent of the island’s land, three
hotels, two restaurants, a pub, a building company, an estate agency and a
bicycle rental business.
They are spending £300,000 a month on a huge reburbishment programme and have
created nearly 100 jobs on an island where round-the-year employment is
scarce. They have opened a crèche, deli, beauty parlour, photo gallery and
bookshop. They plan to supply their hotels and restaurants with organic
fruit, meat and vegetables produced in Sark.
They have unquestionably boosted the island’s fragile economy and smartened
the place up, though some residents lament the passing of Sark’s quirky
backwardness. “It’s as if they are telling Sark people what’s good for
them,” said Christine Audrain, 57, a gift shop owner.
Mr Delaney says the Barclays “have a tremendous affection for the Channel
Islands and want to see Sark flourish”. But the Barclays’ critics are
suspicious of their motives. They fear the twins are not only gaining
economic dominance over the island but also creating a small army of
islanders who depend on them for their livelihoods, and this could influence
the voting come December’s elections. They also fear that deputies employed
by the Barclays may put the twins’ interests before Sark’s. “It’s a concern
felt by many people on the island,” said Mr Beaumont, the Seigneur. Mr
Delaney says the idea that an employer can tell employees how to vote is
“ridiculous”.
Whatever the truth, the Barclays – despite their munificence – have not
exactly won the island’s gratitude and affection. “From a PR point of view
they’ve scored own goals at every turn,” said Mr Armorgie.
They did give 70 islanders tea on Brecqhou last August, but seldom set foot on
Sark and have never taken their landowners’ seats in Chief Pleas. At two
meetings they have had lawyers from London and Guernsey take their place,
using a rule allowing them to nominate substitutes on production of a
medical certificate saying they are sick. Outraged deputies sought to have
the lawyers excluded. Mr Delaney said the Barclays’ investment in the island
would end if that happened – “How can you carry on investing in the island
if you are denied representation in its government?” The vote was lost.
The Barclays have won some grovelling apologies after threatening their
critics with legal action. But their opponents question Ms McDermott’s
assertion that they act only in cases of serious defamation.
Jennifer Cochrane, 72, a former zoologist who produces the island newsletter
from her cluttered living room, was threatened with court proceedings unless
she surrendered a photograph she took of the Barclays chatting to islanders
in a lane. Miss Cochrane said: “It was completely over the top.” Gordon
Dawes, the Barclays’ Guernsey lawyer, said that she had been told not to
take their picture.
An astonished Sandra Williams, a Barclay critic who runs the island hall’s
bar, received a letter from Mr Dawes for failing immediately to remove a
poem someone pinned to a noticeboard. It read:
Barclay, Donnelly and Dawes
Are kicking our customs and laws.
This ‘Triad of Spite’
– Good manners take flight –
Is battering Sark without pause.
So come! Let’s unite!
Let’s arm and let’s fight
These purveyors of sh***
Called Barclay, Donnelly and Dawes.
Mr Dawes told The Times that the poem had to be seen in the wider
context of a sustained, malicious campaign against the Barclays.
Mrs Williams said: “The Barclays used the threat of legal action to silence
their critics, knowing they can’t afford to defend themselves.” Stephen
Henry, 73, a retired GP from Wiltshire, received a Dawes letter demanding to
know if he wrote an anonymous attack on the Barclays posted on a Sark
website. He had apologised for an earlier criticism of the Barclays, but
this time was innocent. “I was very upset indeed. It set me back a week or
two,” said Dr Henry, who had just been discharged from hospital after having
a cancerous lung removed. Mr Dawes, who was unaware of Dr Henry’s illness,
subsequently apologised.
While the Barclays vigorously protect their privacy and reputations they also
financeSark News, a monthly publication delivered to every home,
which pillories the Seigneur, Seneschal and anyone else associated with a
“deeply undemocratic, self-interested and self-serving regime”. One edition
offered three £1,000 prizes for a quiz on the Seigneur’s feudal powers. Even
Ms McDermott admits it can be “searing” and “quite abrasive”.
Sark Newslists a Mrs S. Oliver as its editor, but the islanders have no
idea who she is. In response to e-mailed questions she said that she was too
busy to meet The Times. She refused to say where she was based or
whether she ever visited Sark, but defended her right to be “forthright” in
countering the “propaganda” of Miss Cochrane’s newsletter.
A group of islanders are preparing a complaint to the Press Complaints
Commission, describing Sark News as “malicious in tone, inaccurate in
its facts, unbalanced in its opinions and actionable in what it publishes”.
The Barclays have angered islanders in other ways. They have just demanded the
return of a £100,000 donation they made to the new hall in 2001 because of
the “naked commercialism” of its bar and off-licence. The Barclays – who
must know a thing or two about commercialism – say that this is a breach of
their stipulation that the premises be used “wholly and unconditionally for
charitable purposes”. After inquiries by The Times their
lawyers sent this newspaper a fax yesterday saying that they were seeking to
settle the issue “amicably”.
The Barclays structured their property purchases to avoid paying Mr Beaumont
his treizième, which they considered an unlawful feudal due. They stuck to
that position when Mr Beaumont – lacking the resources to challenge the
Barclays in court – transferred his right to the treizième to the Chief
Pleas in return for an annual stipend of £28,000. The Chief Pleas is now
replacing the treizième with a new property tax to close the legal loophole
used by the Barclays.
The Barclays have also challenged the Sark Shipping Company’s de facto
monopoly on the Guernsey-Sark ferry route, which it is allowed to keep it
viable. The company is ultimately owned by the islanders and provides their
lifeline to the outside world, but Mr Delaney said the Barclays considered
it overpriced, ill-managed and financially unstable.
Last autumn Mr Delaney used the Barclays’ boat to import a generator for the
refurbishment programme on Sark. An islander reported him. Sark’s
authorities passed the complaint to Guernsey police, who summoned him for
questioning. Mr Delaney said that conduct was so outrageous that he told his
workforce he was considering closing down the programme.
In the event Guernsey police dropped the case and Mr Delaney continues to
import building materials. “The Barclays have a perfect right to use their
own vessel to carry their own building material for their own building
projects,” said Mr Dawes.
That leaves the shipping company – which operates on a shoestring – facing a
dilemma. Does it test the legitimacy of the Barclays’ actions in court,
knowing that defeat could result in bankruptcy, or continue to let the
Barclays import freight in their own vessel, denying itself a vital source
of income?
Ms McDermott calls Sark’s hostility to the Barclays “surprising when you think
what they’ve done for the island. They’ve brought it a democratic assembly,
put paid to a tax that went straight into the Seigneur’s pocket, helped the
island’s women by ending primogeniture, and supported its working people by
boosting the economy”.
But the feuding continues. The Barclays have offered to build Sark an
all-weather helipad on a patch of clifftop scrubland so – they say – their
private helicopter can evacuate islanders in medical emergencies. Prominent
Chief Pleas members insist that the playing field works fine and suspect
that the Barclays want a helipad so they can hop over to inspect their
properties, disturbing the island’s peace and frightening its horses.
On Sark, alas, there is virtually no trust – and little peace – left.
Island culture
— Sark is the smallest of the four main Channel Islands. It has its own
legislature, judicial system and administration, but Westminster is
responsible for defence and law and order
— The island is controlled by a hereditary Seigneur. He must maintain an army
of 40 men and is the only islander allowed to keep pigeons
— Sark has no mains water, mains drainage or metalled roads. A person has to
be resident for 15 years before building a new house
Source: Sark Tourism; agencies; Times archives
