Fort Regent history
Fort Regent history
This history of Fort Regent is taken from a report on the structure prepared for the States in 2006
Edward VI
In 1550 Edward VI ordained 'because on occasion of foreign invasion we be informed that you have no place of strength to retire unto, we require you to convey your Town unto the Hill above the same, which we are informed may, with little charge be made strong and defensible'.
Elizabeth I
The suggestion was met with little enthusiasm and the town remained at the base of the hill. In 1591 consent was given by the Procureurs of the Vingtaine de la Ville (Nicolas Lempriere, Pierre de Souslemont and Philippe Journeaux) to ‘alienate’ and ‘bargainer’ in perpetuity a quantity and parcel of the Mont de St Helier from the point in the east called the Chambre es Dames to Rocquereuse for the employment of fortifications from here on without prejudice to the rest of the Vingtaine’.
The document refers to a promise from Elizabeth I in letters patent to fortify and rampart the height and summit of the Mont de la Ville for the good defence of the town. The document states that these actions should not be undertaken without the consent of the inhabitants of the Vingtaine, 'who have the special right and usage of the common and pasture of the Montagne'. Two years later it was suggested that the hill should 'be fortified by means of a bulwark of earth'.
Despite the clear intention to fortify the Town Hill, however, it is not clear if any works were carried out in the 16th century. It seems likely that they were not: Mont Orgueil, which had been the principal fortress of the mediaeval period, was superseded by Elizabeth Castle from the later 16th century. Paul Ivy, one of the best known Tudor military engineers, visited Jersey in 1594 and carried out work at Mont Orgueil and designed Elizabeth Castle.
Maps of the period also suggest that there were no fortifications on the Town Hill at this time. The 1545 Map of the Island shows St Aubin’s Fort only on the south of the island and Poppinjay’s Platte of 1563 shows Mont Orgueil, St Aubin’s Fort and the Abbey Church and St Helier’s Chapel quite clearly, but there is no indication of fortifications on the Town Hill.
In December 1627, the Calendar of State Papers shows that in response to a threat from the French, notes were made and addressed to Viscount Conway showing the danger to the Island of Jersey and making proposals for its defence. The notes include the suggestion that an engineer be sent over to superintend the ‘entrenchments on the hill opposite Castle Elizabeth’.
Civil war
Again it is not clear whether an engineer was sent, or whether entrenchments were constructed at this time and the next known use of the Mont de la Ville for military purposes was during the Civil War.
In 1651 Colonel Heane, the Parliamentarian commander, tackled Mont Orgueil – which opened its gates to him - and then moved on to Elizabeth Castle. George Carteret, loyal to the Crown, had retreated there. Heane saw the taming of the castle as gunners’s work and he built batteries at the end of the bridge in the churchyard and on the Town Hill.
Apparently the Rector of St Helier, Pierre d’Assigny visited the homes of pro-Parliamentary supporters on 30 September 1643 and bade them immediately after Communion on Sunday afternoon ‘bring spades to the Mont de la Ville, and build a fort to bombard the Castle that was bombarding the Town. The distance to the castle from these batteries was such that Heane had to send to Portsmouth for larger cannon.
Three large mortars were installed at the foot of the Town Hill, the largest taking a bomb containing 40lb of powder. The third shot of this mortar landed on the old Abbey Church at the castle, destroying not only the church but also the castle’s store of powder, leading to the eventual surrender of the castle. The location of the Town Hill battery is noted on Peter Meade’s map of 1737 as ‘the remains of Cromwell’s Battery against the castle’ and is probably where States housing on Pier Road exists today (Haut du Mont) and is the former site of the military hospital.
Heane’s battery was positioned to minimise the distance to Elizabeth Castle for his guns and would not have been anything other than a temporary structure. Certainly fortifications on the Mont de la Ville are not mentioned by Peter Heylyn in his Survey of France with an account of the Isles of Guernsey, and Jersey. of 1656, nor are they shown in the West Prospect of Elizabeth Castle in Jersey published with Falle’s History of Jersey, first published in 1694.
==18th century Lines During the 18th century there was increasing concern about the threat of French invasion. It appears that, although there had been talk of the need for further fortifications against invasion, little was undertaken until the middle of the 18th century. Falle’s History of Jersey describes the Town Hill not in military terms but ‘as it is common, it should be beneficial for the sake of herbage, and to the gentlemen and ladies it affords a lovely walk with a most extended prospect on all sides'.
Meade’s map of 1737, prepared ‘pursuant to an order of the Honble Board of Ordnance, shows only the use of the Town Hill as a ‘place of exercise’ for the Militia, with no defensive structures. Grazing probably continued until the construction of the fort: cattle are shown in Grose’s view of the dolmen the Dolmen in 1795, and even allowing for picturesque composition, this was a likely use of common ground.
New plan
In 1756 an engineer, James Bramham, was commissioned to prepare a further plan of the Town Hill by the Board of Ordnance. At this time the French were threatening invasion of England and Bramham’s visit would have been part of the Board of Ordnance’s response. His plan shows ditches and ‘intrenchments’ running along the east side of the Town Hill and South Hill. The walls are of earth rather than stone, and Bramham’s plan gives sections of the proposed lines at various points. Bramham noted that the chief problem with the Montagne de la Ville was the provision of sufficient water.
In 1758 an Order in Council included proposals from the Board of Ordnance for the defences of the Island noting that ‘whereas it has been this day humbly represented to His Majesty that the poverty of the inhabitants of the Island is as to render them unable to finish at their expense the Lines (a connected series of fieldworks) upon St Helier’s Hill’.
The Order in Council goes on to say that the lines should be completed by the Board of Ordnance and the necessary cannon and stores for them ‘sent thither’. The lines are shown on a view of St Helier of 1757 (The Town of St Helier from the NE, by J Heath) which also shows some intriguing earth structures on the east side of the hill below the summit, which are unidentified.
Officer's plan
Subsequent plans show the defensive lines in place. The 1782 plan by ‘an officer’ (A Plan of the Island of Jersey with a sketch of the batteries, redoubts and intrenchments raised alongthe coastal defence of the Island by an officer, published William Fayden, Charing Cross, depicts the lines not in the manner of stone batteries, such as that at La Coupe, suggesting that the lines were indeed earthworks.
The Richmond Map, published 1795 but actually surveyed in 1787 (An accurat survey and measurement of the Island of Jersey surveyed by order of His Grace the Duke of Richmond FMC, Master General of the Ordnance Eng John Warner 1795) also shows a wall or intrenchment, but in greater detail. The dolmen in the centre of the Mont de la Ville is also shown. The map indicates the topography of the site particularly well and it is easy to see where the Glacis Field was later to be situated
Col Humfrey
The Town and South Hills were further mapped in 1806. On 14 May that year Lieut-Colonel John Humfrey - who was placed in charge of the new fort’s construction - prepared a Plan of the Ordnance, Land and Buildings adjoining the Town Hill of St Helier, shewing also the new works carrying on and the way it is proposed to form the ground lately purchased.
The drawing is in two parts: a plan of the entire complex extending from Snow Hill to La Collette (Pointe des Pas) showing the then current state of the defences and an overlay showing Humfrey’s proposals for the fort.
The plan as existing shows a redoubt dominating Snow Hill, linked by earthworks to the original field fort at the northern end of the fortifications. The complex was approximately 400 feet long and 180 feet wide and contained a battery of four cannon directed eastwards in much the same position as the current mortar battery in the Northern Redoubts.
It is possible that the earth bank present today is a remnant of the earlier field fort as the bank appears to have been made up of wind blown loess and rubble and is not a natural feature. Infantry lines extended south from the field fort along the ridge of the hill leading to two redoubts on the north and south slopes of South Hill.
The main defences faced eastward, showing that Humfrey’s predecessors believed that an attack would come from the east, the west being defended by cliffs. The tower on the end of the Pointe des Pas is clearly shown beside the Artificers Barracks along with barracks on the South Hill site where the Planning Department and Public Services buildings now stand and a hospital on the site of Heane’s battery.
The 1806 plan shows not only the main complex but also the surrounding area, the houses on Pier Road, the boundary of Ordnance Land, the road around South Hill, the English and (now called) French Harbours, and on the east side of the complex, Green Street and the Rope Walk with its ancillary buildings.
Other works of fortification before 1806
The fortifications on the Town Hill had been improved since the lines were first constructed in the mid 18th century.
In 1772 General Conway was appointed Governor of Jersey. 1779 was again a year of crisis, with invasion by the French expected throughout Britain: 5,000 French troops under the Prince of Nassau did indeed invade Jersey in May that year. The systematic use of gun towers for beach defence in the Channel Islands was the novel military response.
Conway had proposed the towers in a report in May 1778, but by 1779 only four had been built. Twentytwo of the 32 planned were built by 1794. The inadequacies of Elizabeth Castle as the main military stronghold of the Island had been demonstrated by the French invasion of 1779 and second invasion of 1781 and Conway, working initially with the officer in charge of engineering, Mulcaster, and later with Captain John Evelegh (First Commanding Officer Royal Engineers OCRE), started improving the fortifications on South Hill in the 1780s.
The Bouillon Map of 1799 by James Stead (To his Serene Highness the Prince of Bouillon, Captain in the Royal Navy. This map as a testimony of gratitude for favors conferred, His Most Humbly Dedicated by His Highness’s Most Obliged and Obedient Servant) shows a ‘Citadel’ at the south end of the site, demonstrating that at this time South Hill was still considered the principal fortress, rather than Town Hill, which is named as such. The signal station and the hospital on the site of Cromwell’s battery are also shown.
When work started on Fort Regent nearly 20 years later, the principal decisions on its form and location had already been made. Conway's work was not wasted, however, and the two redoubts on South Hill formed an integral part of the defensive complex. The southern redoubt - shown on the Le Gros plan of 1834 - still exists at the southeast corner of South Hill.
The northern redoubt was probably lost to quarrying at South Hill. It had already been demolished by April 1822, when a plan showing alterations of the 'Ordnance Ground near St Helier carried out since 1806' was prepared by Major Fanshaw, the Commanding Officer of the Royal Engineers. Its removal probably improved the field of fire down the Glacis, and the flat lawn of the gardens above the turning area today probably represents a remnant of the redoubt's interior.
It also appears that the walls at the south-western extremity of South Hill (now overlooking La Collette) pre-date the fort proper and may even pre-date Conway's work at South Hill. In a view of the Town of St Helier by Heriot, of circa 1781, the south-west walls appear and in a view of South Hill and Old Harbour dated 1770 a fort stands above the harbour on South Hill, although the attribution date of the painting may be incorrect.
Construction of Fort Regent
The threat of invasion did not abate in the early years of the 19th century. On 17 November 1806 Lieut-General Don (Lieut-Governor of Jersey 1806-14) wrote to the Board of Ordnance saying 'This island is still in a very defenceless state and from the great progress of the enemy on the continent I must expect to be attacked (in) the ensuing spring'.
The network of towers around the coast, initiated by Conway, provided the Island with a first line of defence against an invader, and Don continued the programme of construction. These were soon to be supplemented by the 'place of strength' on the Town Hill first proposed by Edward VI 250 years before, and finally determined upon by the Board of Ordnance in 1787.
The earliest known plans for the new fortress are dated August 1787, and although it was John Humfrey who took them forward to construction, it seems likely that Lieut-Colonel John Evelegh was responsible for some of its design. Evelegh, the Commanding Royal Engineer for Portsmouth, was responsible for the reconstruction of Fort Cumberland at the entrance to Langstone Harbour from 1794, which he may also have designed. Fort Cumberland was the last self-contained, fully bastioned fortress to be built in England. Fort Westmoreland in Cork Harbour and Fort Regent were both begun a few years later, and marked the end of this type of fortress in the British Isles and Ireland.
Evelegh had worked on fortifications in Jersey from the late 1780s and through the 1790s and had also estimated the relative costs of fortifying the North and South Hills for the Board of Ordnance. John Humfrey, then a Captain in the Royal Engineers, was appointed to Jersey in 1800, and it seems unlikely that he would not have known earlier plans, or have been influenced by them. It appears that Humfrey was working on plans of Fort Regent as early as 1803, but his 1806 plan (by which time he had been promoted to Lieut-Colonel) shows his own proposals for the fort, straddling the Mont de la Ville and the Petit Mont de la Ville.
1806 plan
Humfrey's 1806 plan was not followed completely: at the southern end of the fort, Humfrey proposed a ravelin rather than the counterguard and glacis that were eventually built. The redoubts already present on South Hill were also to be replaced by two towers, but these were never constructed. Fanshaw's 1822 plan shows the Glacis in much the same state as it is today, and also quarrying at South Hill, but there is no sign of the two towers proposed by Humfrey. Two further towers appear on Humfrey's plan located between the fort and houses in Hill Street: these too appear never to have been built.
Fort Regent's bastioned design is clearly influenced by the work of Vauban, who dominated thinking on fortification from the late 17th century. The fort has two bastions and four redans giving complete cover to the entire outer wall. It is surrounded by a ditch and counterscarp on the eastern side, is protected by cliffs to the west (which were further improved by blasting) and by a vast cutting, over 600 feet long, on the eastern side.
Outworks further protect the more vulnerable eastern side, the northern approaches and South Hill. The whole was designed to channel any attack up a glacis over 230 yards (210 metres) long, where troops would have been subject to withering fire from the Counterguard. By the later 18th century military engineers were aware of some of the disadvantages of the bastion system and Fort Regent is consequently designed to suit the terrain, rather than being of standard shape, but it represents the last of a type that had been in use for over 200 years.
Completion
The fort was completed in 1814 and named after the Prince Regent. It has never been attacked and has consequently never proved its design in action. It is worth noting, however, that only 25 years after its completion a contemporary traveller doubted its capacity for sustaining a defence:
- 'A more modern fort frowns defiance against invaders upon a rising ground immediately to the south of St Helier. This fort is well constructed, but from its size, the proper defence of it would require a numerous garrison; and though strong towards the sea, it is much less so on the land side; there being heights there, within cannon-shot, which so completely command it, as that it could not hold out for any great length of time, unless at a great sacrifice. It, however, makes a splendid show of defence; and it is, at all events, desirable nothing else than this should ever again be wanted.
Land purchase
Humfrey's initial plans for the site were submitted to the Inspector General's Office in 1803. In May that year the Board of Ordnance agreed that the land should be acquired, but the purchase of the land was not as straightforward as Humfrey would have liked. Field works had already been carried out on some of the land to be purchased and this alerted the owners to the fact that they could place the Government in a situation where their only option would be to purchase the land at an inflated cost.
Despite, or perhaps because of, the 1591 grant of land by the Vingtaine de la Ville, the Procureurs of the Vingtaine succeeded in having a case against the Government placed before the Royal Court on 14 June 1804. The Court demanded a Grande Vue de Justice, with 24 men visiting the site to determine the value of the land.
The eventual cost was £11,280, rather more than Humfrey wished to pay, but less than the amount demanded by the Vingtaine. The money awarded to the Vingtaine was invested and the revenues used for the benefit of the public in the Vingtaine, for example a contribution of £6,000 was made by the Vingtaine towards the cost of the multi-storey car park at Green Street and £1,500 was given towards the cost of the children's playground at South Hill.
As part of the transaction with the Vingtaine, a height restriction was imposed on Commercial Buildings, confining the building of storehouses to no 'greater height than the top of the bank and in that case they can be of no detriment to the works or any obstruction to the bank itself'. That restriction exists to the present day.
A drawing prepared on 11 April 1805 shows that Government eventually paid £31,071 for property purchased for the construction of Fort Regent.
Labour and mMaterials
Fort Regent was built using both local labour and men from the 8th Company of the Corps of Military Artificers. The company was divided between Jersey and Guernsey meaning that Humfrey had approximately 63 military tradesmen under his command, only some of whom were available for work in Jersey, as works of fortification were also underway at the time in Guernsey.
The scale of the fortifications and speed of the work meant that Humfrey had to employ men in considerable numbers. On 30 July 1806 he advised his Commander-in-Chief that he had employed: '22 carpenters, 6 sawyers, 5 wheelers, 1 cooper, 62 masons, 26 smiths, 97 miners, 334 labourers' on the scheme.
The numbers of local men working on the construction of Fort Regent grew in 1807 when on 5 September the States adopted a 'Reglement' which obliged all men to work at the defence of the Island. A list in Humfrey's handwriting dated 4 July 1806 shows that of a total 1,102 men needed, only 77 of these would come from England. While it is unlikely that Humfrey was given all the manpower he requested, it is estimated that the labour force was an average of 800 men throughout the eight-year period of construction.
Granite
The main walls of Fort Regent are constructed primarily of granite from the south-west of Jersey, although the particular quarry is not known. Occasionally a greyer granite, possibly from the Minquiers, is found among the large blocks and it may be from this that the 19th century story of rock for the fort coming from Maitresse Ile recounted in Balleine's History of Jersey comes: apparently quarrying took place 'till in 1807 the fishermen, fearing that their isle would be entirely destroyed, dropped the quarrymen's tools into deep water, and so stopped their work'.
Fort Regent granite itself has been used extensively for rubble wall construction throughout the site, notably the inner face of the counterscarp, the walls of parts of the Northern Redoubts and the Glacis walls. It was probably quarried from the site as the Parade Ground was levelled, the ditches formed and external scarping created.
An early 19th century account tells us that 'all the ashler was obtained from near the Icho Rock; the copings, etc, from Mount Madou, whilst the rock on the spot only afforded rough materials for coarse work'. Note that a handwritten correction dated 1836 states 'after Icho Rock read SE of Rocque Platte' so the exact source of rock remains unclear. Other stones are also found: diorites and sea-washed pebbles of various types in the rubble work, Mont Mado granite for the string course at the main entrance and carboniferous limestone (Portland Stone) below gun embrasures and around the small ventilation holes in the walls. Brick was also used and yellow stocks are found in the passage between the two still accessible lower batteries in the Northern Redoubts, and throughout for forming the arches of casemates, stairs and sally ports. A red brick has been used to form the embrasures in the East Outworks and in several places as paving.
Dressed ashlar has invariably been used on wall faces that may have expected to receive cannon fire, while those protected, such as the north face of the Counterguard, are of coursed rubble. Coigns are of granite, with the exception of the East Bastion, where there are coigns of carboniferous limestone from the Portland/Purbeck area, now weathered, but with strong tooling still visible.
The walls of the Northern Outworks are of Fort Regent rubble, with coigns of heavily weathered granite, suggesting an earlier date than the main fort, if only by a few years. The lintel over the steps from the Northern Redoubts down to the North Ditch is particularly deeply weathered. A feature of early 19th century granite is that the upper deposits (down to about 10 metres) were rapidly exhausted as military and civil building accelerated, resulting in better quality stone being quarried.
A book of letters to and from John Humfrey between 14 August 1809 and 2 May 1810 exists at the Jersey Archive. It contains letters relating to the supply of materials (stone, lime, coals, paving stones) and labour (masons, bricklayers from England). Further investigation would reveal more information about the specific sources of materials.
The Corps of Artificers was finally incorporated into the Royal Engineers in 1856, a company frequently in attendance at Fort Regent during its history. The Engineers also have a more recent involvement with Fort Regent: the 8th Field Squadron of Royal Engineers, a direct descendant of the original 8th company, built the bridges that now span the moats in the East Outworks and the Covered Way.
Garrison
The number of men Humfrey intended to man the Fort is not easy to determine, however an anonymous source indicates that Humfrey saw the total capacity as 1,468 men.
It is clear that the total needed to defend the Fort would have been more than the 305 mentioned in a 1932 survey prepared by the Royal Engineers, as there are positions for more than 100 cannon alone. In any event, the Jersey Militia would have supplemented the permanent force at the fort. By 1832 the Militia numbered six regiments, with 24 light six-pounders and 2,500 men. In 1891 there were still 1,992 officers and men belonging to the Militia, despite the long years of peace.
Artillery
Artillery was a vital part of the defence of Jersey and the construction of Fort Regent altered the status quo. In May 1816 Captain (later Lieut-Colonel) Gosset of the Royal Engineers prepared a list of all the coast batteries in the Island giving the total number of guns or carronades in the Island as 287. The Captain recommended that 150 be dismounted as 'now that there is so respectable a Fortress on the Island as Fort Regent, I entertain great doubts as to the policy of having so many heavy Guns on the coast, which might be brought against that Fort'.
The number of guns at Fort Regent varied throughout its life. A return of the guns at the fort dated 8 March 1810 gives the total number of guns as 55 and mortars as 6. By 1848 a return of garrison ordnance stated that, when completely armed, Fort Regent required 126 pieces of Ordnance, including 8 mortars. The then current figures were stated at: 15 18-lb guns, five 12-lb guns, 29 24-lb carronades - Total 49 pieces'.
Most of the early ordnance at Fort Regent was manufactured by the Carron Company, Falkirk, Scotland. The company's well-known CArronade was used successfully at Waterloo and Trafalgar.
During clearance work in 1970, three gun barrels were found at Fort Regent. Two gun carriages were also discovered more or less intact, a third cut into two pieces and a fourth also cut in two but with only one half remaining. The guns, dated 1863, are both rifled and breech loading and are among the earliest of this type used by the British Army. The guns are of the Armstrong pattern, manufactured at Sir W G Armstrong and Company's Elswick Works, near Newcastle upon Tyne. Breech loading guns were abandoned shortly after their introduction as being too unwieldy - it was actually quicker to fire and reload muzzle-loading cannon but were reintroduced from about 1880 after improvements to breech loading mechanisms.
The well
The construction of a well at Fort Regent was vital to ensure a supply of fresh water for the garrison. Bramham had noted the fact in 1756 and it seems likely that the absence of a water supply on the hill had been the principal reason for the town not having been moved there during the previous centuries.
Digging began in December 1806 and was completed in October 1808. The monumental task - using 2,148 pounds of gunpowder to blast through the granite - was carried out by 12 miners and cost a total of £2,559 8s 7d, exclusive of pumping gear. The well is reckoned to be 235 feet deep. The pump house is located under the parade, about 40ft out from the magazine to the north of the East Bastion. The floor level of the pump house is 20ft below the parade and accessed through a sloping tunnel from a barrack room in the East Curtain. The base of the well averages 9ft in diameter and situated to the south are two rectangular casements with a capacity for 12,000 gallons of water.
The original beam engine, as illustrated on a drawing prepared by Humfrey in 1814 and countersigned by Maudsley and Company, survives, at least in part. Men or horses would have driven the pump, which was 4 inches in diameter, with brass bucket and valves, with '195 feet of wrought iron rod, jointed every 10 feet, and 18 ten-feet lengths of 5 in iron pipe'.
A pivoted beam over the well worked the plunger and was activated by a connecting rod from a large wheel situated underneath. The power to drive the pump was obtained by simple machinery with two horizontal spars about 8ft long radiating outwards, which was geared to a driving shaft set into a channel to connect with the drive wheel at the head of the well. The effectiveness of the well and pumping gear is shown by Major Jones' claim that 24 men working for two hours without fatiguing themselves, can with ease pump into the cisterns 800 gallons of water'. Whether the men considered the task so easy is doubtful: it is known from Government House correspondence of 1834 that defaulters from drill were put on pump fatigue every day of their confinement. The eventual cost of the pumping equipment was £677 15s 2d.
19th century
In 1815 Humfrey's successor, Lieut-Colonel Gossett, prepared plans for a further outwork - an Epaulement - to the west of Fort Regent, intended to cover the fort from any fire from Gallows Hill (Westmount). The position was to provide an arched casemate accommodating two 24 pounder Carronades, with a further battery of three on top. The plan was obviously abandoned, as Fanshaw's 1822 plan shows the rock formation as it exists at the present day. The initial workings can still be seen on the rock outcrop to the south of the upper level of the car-park.
Litigation, which was a key feature prior to the building of the Fort, seems to have continued in the years after the threat of war from France had abated. The Government was often called to answer cases relating to property in court. In 1813 the Government had purchased a piece of land close to the Regent Hotel, flanking Pier Road, to connect the Fort into the main sewer on the public highway. The plan was eventually abandoned but in 1818 the Government was brought to court, as a condition of the sale of the land had been the connection of the Fort to the sewer. As this had not occurred the Government were required to pay £65 13s 4d.
A further dispute opened on 30 August 1823. A society called the Memorialists had been formed by merchants who wished to erect a new quay in the Harbour. A disagreement arose, which is summarised in a memorandum sent to the Board of Ordnance:
- Encroachments made by the memorialists on the Public Road (Pier Road)
- Their having exceeded the limits to which the Act of Court of 29 November 1804
restricted them in the height of their buildings
- To be allowed to build a Parapet Wall above the level of the Road, with a right to carry
their buildings to the same height, although by the Act of Court above quoted and by which Government came possessed of the Ground for the erection of Fort Regent, no building was permitted above the level of the said Road'.
The Government allowed the Memorialists to encroach into the Ordnance land at Pier Road, and also allowed a uniform building height of 34 feet above the coping stones of the quay, enven though the road varied in height above the quay from 30 ft 8 in to 42 ft 3 in. The final request to build a parapet wall along the west side of Pier Road was unacceptable to the Board, although as there is a granite wall in existence today the Board must have conceded at some point.
Quarrying
Some blasting was carried out by the Board of Ordnance during the construction of the fort, but the Board also let the rights to quarrying both the Mont de la Ville and Petit Mont de la Ville.
Captain Fyers of the Royal Engineers proposed that quarrying could take place between the West Bastion and Signal Station, having the dual advantage of making the western scarp steeper and providing material for the significant amount of building work being carried out in the town at the time. By 1825 the Star Quarries, as they were named, were reported to have been nearly cleared. In more recent times the quarry became Norman's builders yard, and is now the site of the Clos du Fort housing development.
South Hill was quarried too. A point of rock in the vicinity of the Harvey monument had been used for repairing the Pier in 1822. Much of the stone for the new Victoria Pier - named by Queen Victoria during her visit in 1846 - was also quarried from South Hill. Quarrying also formed the cut to the east of South Hill now used for parking practice and the path that leads towards La Collette gardens.
The quarrymen were found to be over-zealous in the later 19th century, however. A letter of 12 June 1888 from the Commanding Officer of the Royal Engineers Jersey to the Bailiff points out that quarrying at South Hill had sunk below the level agreed by the War Office. This was to be carried out on a line 'so as to form a continuation of the slopes of the Glacis of Fort Regent.
The South Hill workings were filled in during the 1930s and formed into gardens. A photograph in the Jersey Evening Post dated 27 February 1932 shows the Old Battery site, newly acquired by the Parish of St Helier and turned into gardens and a children's playground.
Later 19th century
Military buildings continued to be adapted for new uses. The barracks at South Hill became a military prison in the later 19th century it is recorded as the Provost Prison in 1879. The buildings were used as a prisoner-of-war camp, mainly for Americans and French Algerians, in the Second World War.
Married quarters for the Fort Regent garrison were constructed in 1878 in Green Street but were demolished in 1962 to make way for States Housing. Plans of the buildings exist at the Public Record Office.
Non-military uses for parts of the site also started in the later 19th century. In 1871 the Constable of St Helier presented a petition to the States of Jersey on behalf of the Jersey Eastern Railway Company, which intended to run a line between St Helier and Gorey. The plan included the construction of a terminus in Humfrey's cutting at Snow Hill. The terminus was formally opened on 6 May 1874 and was 300 feet long, a third of the length of the cutting.
The cutting was found to be too narrow for passengers, however, and in 1897 the eastern face of the rock was quarried back to Regent Road. The Jersey Eastern Railway Company was wound up in 1929 and by 1935 the Snow Hill terminus had reopened as a bus station. In 1964 the buses were moved and the cutting became the car park that it is today.
20th century
The military importance of Fort Regent declined steadily during the first half of the 20th century and it seems that it was used primarily as a barracks. An eyewitness speaking in 1971 stated that the armament of the Fort in 1910-12 consisted only of .303 Lee-Enfield rifles and a machine gun, suggesting that the heavy ordnance had all been removed. Apparently the Eastern Outworks were not in use at this time and both they and the Northern Outworks are omitted from the detailed plan of the fort made in 1932 by the Royal Engineers.
The fort continued to adapt to the changing times, however. An attempt to modernise the sanitary aspects of the fort was made in 1914 when cement-rendered washrooms and lavatories were added to the barrack rooms. The 1932 Royal Engineers plan shows a Regimental Institute as well as other facilities that had been constructed in the East Ditch by that date: a school room, a sick bay, a tailors shop, a RAMC reception station, a laboratory and proof shed, a ball court, some more latrines and an 'explosive testing hole'. The total garrison is listed as 305, comprising 6 Officers, 16 Sergeants and 283 NCOs and men.
Although the eye-witness confirmed that the rolling bridge still spanned the ditch in the approach road in 1912, it was removed at some point in the next 20 years, as it does not appear on the 1932 plan. It was common to find 19th century features removed during the First World War to accommodate the substantially heavier traction engines and armaments then in use.
South Hill continued in active military use in the early years of the 20th century. The battery there was fully manned during the First World War and the 6-in guns were removed in 1929, following a War Office report on coastal defence requirements throughout Britain. Seven plans of this battery exist at the Public Record Office, but have not been examined. A Port Signal Station was also erected on the top of the Glacis during the First World War to relay information about shipping to the South Hill Battery in communication with other stations at Mont Orgueil Castle and Ronez. The Station is shown on the 1932 plan.
