Any comments, errors or omissions
gratefully received The
Editor
HTML Transcription
© F.Coakley ,
2001
[from History of IoM, 1900]
THE immediate effect of the changes brought about by the Revestment was certainly the reverse of beneficial to the interests of the Isle of Man.1 The hereditary lords, whose reign had now come to an end, were no doubt far from being model rulers. Their policy may often have been tyrannical or unwise, or influenced by motives of self-interest. But, at any rate, most of them had, to a greater or less extent, taken a personal share in the government of the island, and interested themselves in the well-being of its inhabitants. But when their place at the head of the Manx State was taken by the King of England, the whole direction of its affairs was handed over to officials, for the most part connected with the Treasury, who regarded the island as a pestilent nest of smugglers, from which it was their duty to extract as much revenue as possible, but for which they were under no obligation to do any thing. In the records of the first twenty-eight years after the Revestment there can scarcely be found an indication, on the part of the English Government or its representatives, of anything like concern for the prosperity of this portion of the sovereign's dominions.
In the year 1793, however, a step was taken which opened the way to a more favourable state of things. The Duke of Atholl was made governor of the island. This appointment, which practically amounted to a partial renewal of the ancient lordship, seems to have been made partly in the hope that it would put an end to the persistent efforts of the duke to obtain from the Government increased compensation for the enforced surrender by his family of their ancient sovereignty, and partly because it was thought that the Manx people might prove more amenable under his control than under that of the Treasury officials. If the Government really hoped by this means to appease the restless ambition of the duke, they must soon have discovered that they had been grievously mistaken. On the other hand, as a means of reconciling the islanders to English rule, and in the interests of the people themselves — though that consideration seems hardly to have entered into the thoughts of those in authority — the appointment was, on the whole, a fairly successful one. The career of the fourth Duke of Atholl, and his struggles with the people of Man on the one hand, and with the English Government on the other, in defence of what he deemed to be his hereditary rights, form an important part of Manx history during this period, and deserve to be related at some length.
It has all ready been stated that the Revesting Act, while depriving the Duke of Atholl of his political dominion over the the Isle of Man, left him in undisturbed possession of the rights and privileges, themselves by no means inconsiderable, which he enjoyed in virtue of his position as manorial lord. But was not always easy to determine whether some of the rights formerly exercised by the Atholls had belonged to them as sovereigns or as manorial lord; and, after the Revestment, the manorial lord was in a much less favourable position than before for enforcing his demands. It is, therefore, not surprising that the third duke and his wife found reason to complain of encroachments on the part of their former subjects; and they also considered themselves severely wronged by the insufficient amount of compensation awarded to them by the English Government. They did not, however, make any practical effort to obtain redress of their Grievances. But their son, who succeeded to the dukedom in 1774, immediately gave evidence of his uncompromising determination not to sacrifice the smallest fraction of what he considered to be his rights. His first step was to endeavour to exact from the Manx people certain manorial dues which had ceased to be paid since 1765. The islanders strenuously resisted, and, moreover, assumed the aggressive, in 1776, by passing an Act for the repairing of highways, draining fens, making boundaries, and preventing trespasses,2 all matters which affected the duke as manorial proprietor.
In 1777, another blow was aimed at his influence by the exclusion of the ecclesiastical officers from the Council, on the ground that, since the duke no longer had sovereign power, his nominees had no right to the same privileges as the other officers who were the nominees of the Crown. In this year several Acts directed against him were passed. One of these confirmed the Act of Settlement3 though the duke protested that he had no intention of interfering with it; another deprived him of the payment of herrings and carriage of turf, 4 formerly contributed by the fishermen and tenants respectively for the use of the garrisons and the civil officers,5 which, though both the garrisons and the officers ceased to be his family's in 1765, he claimed as due to him; a third regulated weights and measures,6 the control of which he considered to be one of his prerogatives, and a fourth abolished the Great Enquest,7 the continuance of which he declared was absolutely necessary for the preservation of his property. This legislation, though the duke protested against it, received the royal assent, but Bills for " the settlement of the Lord's Manor Courts and his Manorial Rights and Interests," and for raising money for expenditure on public buildings, &c., were rejected, the first as being unfair to the duke and the second as an invasion of the Royal prerogative8.
Irritated by these proceedings, the duke, in 1780, brought a Bill into Parliament, the objects of which were to restrain the alienation of lands without his consent; 9 to compel the deposit of all title-deeds with his seneschal, who was to be ex-officio a member of the Council; to re-transfer to himself certain services and rights of which he considered himself to have been unjustly deprived by the Crown at the Revestment; to prohibit the erection of mills without his licence, and to authorise his servants to enter the houses of all persons to search for dogs and guns and anything that might be used for the destruction of game. This Bill was reported against by the attorney and solicitor-general of England, and by Sir W. Busk, the attorney-general of the island, and was consequently withdrawn10.
Undaunted by this repulse, in the following year the duke petitioned Parliament again, asking for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the " Revesting Act." This was opposed by the Government on the grounds that the income of the Atholl family mainly arose from the import duties paid by smugglers, and that it was highly improbable that the Tynwald Court would have voted additional taxation merely for the sake of increasing the ducal revenue. It was also opposed by the Keys, whose speaker, Sir G. Moore, together with John Cosnahan,11 gave evidence against it at the bar of the House of Lords, contending that the island, not the duke, ought to have the benefit of the surplus revenue, and that the Bill contained many provisions contrary to the constitution of the island and injurious to its inhabitants. It, however, passed the Commons, but reached the Lords at too late a period in the session for its full consideration. 12 The duke seems to have been alarmed by the opposition to his claim both in Parliament and in the island, 13 as he desisted from pressing it till 1790, when General Murray moved for leave to bring in a Bill for appointing commissioners to enquire into the extent and value of certain rights, revenues, and possessions in the Isle of Man.14 The Government was in favour of the Bill, which, however, was strongly resisted by the Opposition. John C. Curwen, M.P., who was also a member of the House of Keys, said that the duke had promised the House of Keys, in 1787, that he would never introduce any Bill respecting the island into Parliament, without giving them previous notice, but that, in this case, no such notice had been given; and he asserted that he could prove from authentic documents that the allegations made by the duke were utterly unfounded. The Keys petitioned against the Bill, and were heard by counsel, one of their own members, John Cosnahan, again appearing for them.15 It was, nevertheless, read a second time, and the House of Commons subsequently decided on going into committee upon it.16 But the feeling against the Bill was so strong that the Government thought it wise to withdraw it. Pitt, consequently, said that "notwithstanding his full conviction of the propriety, and even necessity, of proceeding with such a measure, yet, after the unfavourable impression which had gained ground upon the subject, he should think it in no degree prudent to attempt to push the Bill further at present." 17
Being thus baffled in Parliament, the Duke, in the following year, petitioned the King in Council to appoint a Commission, which was accordingly done. Before this Commission he made the following allegations:—
1. That the revenues were not fairly collected, even prior to the Revestment.
2. That he had the power of increasing the duties with the consent of the Legislature, and that such consent, to any reasonable degree, would not have been withheld.
3. That his sovereignty over the ports and over Peel island, with its castle, had, with a view of preventing smuggling, been unnecessarily vested in the Crown.
4. That the herring custom, the salmon-fishing dues) the proceeds of Treasure Trove, and the right of free carriage 18 which belonged to him had been so dealt with that he was unable to enforce his right to them.
S. That the value of his " unappropriated lands " had been injured by the action of the insular Legislature.
He urged that he ought to have sufficient authority to prevent his property from being injured, and he denounced the passage of laws secretly,19 without either his knowledge or that of the people. The Keys, on the other hand, objected to the Bills passed by the Tynwald Court being prevented from becoming law by the duke's influence." They, therefore, protested against the clause of reservation 20 in the Act of 1766 which, they declared, had created " a sort of imperium in imperio" 21 and had " produced the dissensions and animosities that at the present moment distract and enflame the inhabitants of the island, and disturb and embitter their small society." 22
To the duke's allegations the commissioners replied as follows:—
1. That owing to the " defective system which eg appeared in evidence to have been established for collecting the duties, . . . the Lord's revenues were not fairly collected, or paid, prior to the Revestment." 23
2. That there was no doubt the lord had the power of increasing duties, but it was not probable that the Tynwald Court would have consented to his doing so " without an equivalent." 24 As regards the third and fourth allegations, they broadly agreed with the duke's views, but they pointed out with reference to the various items of Treasure Trove, such as wrecks, boons and services, game and unappropriated lands, that he had sufficient protection from the ordinary courts of law, and, as to the fifth allegation, they induced the Keys to give an undertaking which satisfied him. They also persuaded the Keys to promise that they would " concur with the Governor and Council in passing an Act of Tynwald, to render public every intended new law," 25 and that a copy of every Bill should be delivered to the duke or his agents; also that they would give the duke " every reasonable and necessary relief he can possibly require, with respect to the protection and regulation of his . . . manorial rights." 26 In consequence of this promise, the commissioners considered that they had no need to proceed further in this part of their enquiry; but they remarked that the " secrecy with which laws, materially affecting the inhabitants, were passed, furnished, no doubt, a just ground of complaint," 27 and they decided that those provisions in the laws of 1777 which were " very generally allowed to have been either hurtful or ineffectual " 28 should " undergo a legislative revision." 28 These suggestions were accordingly carried out by the Tynwald Court. " Technically," says Walpole, " the decision of the commissioners was in the Duke's favour; but at the same time the examination of his claim must have convinced every one that the pecuniary value of the rights of which he may have been unnecessarily deprived was very small." 29 The most valuable among them were the herring customs, worth about £112 per annum30 and the right of free carriage, worth about £130 per annum. 31 And, moreover, even admitting that he had been deprived of certain rights unnecessarily, there can be no doubt that the duke's parents had been under no misapprehension about the sale of these rights, seeing that they were specified in the Act.
Under these circumstances, the Government did not venture to take any action about the duke's claims, but it gave him the upper hand over his adversaries by making him governor, whereby he was practically invested with all the civil patronage in the island, in addition to nearly all the ecclesiastical patronage, which he had before, together with a veto upon all legislation. This greatly embittered the Keys, who, in 1798, when sending their subscription towards the national defence, took the opportunity of protesting against " an influence equally unjust and impolitic, which unfortunately for their country " they were "unable to remove." 32
With the people the duke was for a time popular. This was due, in. the first place, to his having denounced the Keys for passing laws secretly, and also to his actions in getting the embargo on the importation from Great Britain of coal, grain, &c., removed, in 1795, and in inducing the Crown to protect the Manx fishermen from being impressed for the Royal Navy.33
In 1801, the increase of the revenue encouraged him to address a further petition to the King in Council for some additional compensation. The Keys promptly presented a counter petition in the same quarter. Both of these were referred to a committee of the Privy Council, who handed them on to the law officers of the Crown. Their report was adverse to the duke's claim, being, like previous similar reports, to the effect that the revenues of the island before the Revestment were mainly derived from the illicit traffic. The opinion of the Crown lawyers was endorsed by the Privy Council, on the 31st of March, 1804. The duke then asked that the report might be suspended till he had prepared a supplementary petition, praying that a clause or clauses might be introduced into the forthcoming Revenue Bill of the island, granting to him and to his heirs some further share of the insular revenue. This petition was again referred to a committee of the Privy Council, which, without again taking the law officers' opinion, recommended that further compensation should be given. This reversal of their previous decision was, Walpole thinks, the result of the influence of Pitt, who had resumed office on the 15th of May.34 The duke accordingly, in March, 1804, presented a petition to the House of Commons praying that provision might be made in the Bill referred to, which was then before the House, for giving him relief in respect of the inadequate compensation paid in 1765. When the contents of the petition became known in the island there was much agitation against it. In consequence of this, the duke addressed a letter to " the Gentlemen of the keys, the Landholders, the Merchants and Inhabitants of the Isle of Man," protesting that "in asking of Parliament for a further compensation out of the existing revenues of the Isle of Man, rather than from any other fund," he was " actuated by an ardent wish to link the prosperity of the Island with his own; "35 that it would afford him the means of residing in the island, and that such residence would enable him to bring forward measures for the improvement of Manx agriculture, fisheries, manufactures, and trade. These allegations were received by most of the Manx people in incredulity, and the Keys promptly sent a deputation to London which presented a petition to the House of Commons against the granting of any further compensation to the duke. On the other hand, a deputation from the principal merchants presented a counter petition to the House of Commons, in which they referred to him as " the warm, the active, and the only powerful friend of the Island." 36 These petitions were referred to a Committee of the House, which recommended that the duke's request should be granted.37 A Bill was consequently introduced providing that he should be paid " one fourth part of the gross annual revenue arising from the duties of customs now existing within the Isle of Man," 38 and, notwithstanding the strenuous resistance of John Christian Curwen and others, it was passed in the Commons. It was also vigorously opposed in the House of Lords by Lord Ellenborough, who declared that the transaction was " one of the most corrupt jobs ever witnessed in Parliament," 39 and that the manner in which the claim had been pressed was " a proceeding which could only be sanctioned by Parliament in the worst and most corrupt times." 39 This Act gave the duke a direct interest in increasing the insular customs duties.
The use that he made of this position,40 together with his policy of appointing Scots, connected with or depending on his family, to most of the paid offices in the island, gradually alienated his adherents among the natives. Between 1805 and 1815, he seems to have only paid three short visits to the island, and, between 1815 and 1821, he did not visit it at all. In the latter year he again rendered himself acceptable to the people 41 by opposing the attempts of the Keys to prevent the free importation of foreign grain, and, in 1822, when sitting in the Tynwald Court, he greatly delighted them by referring to its lower branch as "a self-elected body, in the choice of which the people of the Island have not the smallest share,"42 and by asserting that " they were no more Representatives of the people of Man, than of the people of Peru." 43
Such language did not tend to conciliate the Keys, who protested against his conduct to the Home Secretary,44 but without any result. The duke, however, saw that he had gone too far, and therefore, at Tynwald, on the 5th of July, he held out an "olive branch,"42 expressing a hope that all differences would cease, while the Keys agreed that they "might mutually forget and forgive." 42 But the truce did not last long, being put an end to, in 1824, by the expulsion of the Keys from the Court of General Gaol Delivery, a proceeding which they attributed to the duke's influence.
At the same time the Council was irritated by a suspicion that he had dismissed a deemster 45 from his office after a secret enquiry,46 and by his preventing the deemsters from sitting in the Court of Chancery; 47 and, finally, the landowners were roused against him by the decision of the Privy Council in favour of the legality of the green-crop tithe48 The attempt of the bishop, supported by the duke, to collect this tithe completed the unpopularity of the Atholl regime, and resulted in serious riots.48 Having thus both the legislature and the people, except a few merchants, against him, his position had clearly become an impossible one, and, therefore, the desire of the Government to sever his connexion with the island and his readiness to accept the offer which enabled him to do so can cause no surprise.
Judged by his actions, he was undoubtedly an able man, with views, in many respects, in advance of his time, but he was very overbearing and autocratic in his manner. Though he did not visit the island after 1826, and his manorial connexion with it was completely severed in 1829, he continued nominally to hold his office of governor till his death in 1830. We will now briefly refer to the purchase by the Crown of his remaining rights in the island. To this end an Act49 was passed in 1825, in accordance with which arbitrators were appointed by the Treasury and the duke to ascertain the value of them.
After a protracted enquiry, they arrived at the following valuation :
| Annuity under Act of 1805 ... ... ... |
£150,000
|
| Lord's or quit rents and alienation fines ... |
34,200
|
| Ecclesiastical patronage, possessions of the religious houses, demesne lands, globe lands, wastes, mines, quarries, services or works of tenants, rectories, tithes commons, forests, and all other rights reserved by the Act of 1765 .50.. |
282,944
|
|
£417,144
|
The first item was paid in 1826, the quit rents, &c., in 1827, the purchase being finally completed in 1828. A Bill to give effect to these sales and conveyances was introduced into the House of Commons in 1829, but was not proceeded with, probably because the Government considered that it was not necessary.
But an Act 51 was passed to place the land revenues and other possessions thus acquired under the management and control of the department of Woods and Forests. These were treated as part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which George IV. and his successors, following the example of George III., placed at the disposal of the House of Commons during their lives, the House then making other provision 52 for the Crown.53
The price received by the Atholls was no doubt an exorbitant one. For the sovereignty and customs they received in all £349,600; 54 for the patronage, which was practically of no value, £100,000; and for their landed- possessions, rents, royalties, &c., £167,144.55 But, nevertheless, the Crown, or rather the English Government, made what ultimately turned out to be a good bargain,56 seeing that they gained from the surplus revenues of the island before 1866 more than the whole sum they paid to the duke, and, besides this, they have received excellent interest on the sum paid for the landed estates, royalties on mines, &;c.57
The restored Atholl rule between 1793 and 1826 was distinctly more beneficial to the island than the Imperial rule which immediately preceded it. Autocratic, but kindly, and, except perhaps in the appointment of his countrymen to the most lucrative positions in the island, conscientious, the fourth Duke of Atholl wielded a power which his prestige as the descendant of the ancient ruling family, his position as manorial lord, and his influence with successive English Governments, rendered all but despotic. And yet, while during the first period trade, agriculture, and fishing languished, the harbours silted up, and the public buildings decayed, they all made some progress at least during the second. This result was, we believe, mainly due to the fact that, before 1793, Manx interests were almost entirely neglected, but, after that date, though the duke quarrelled with the Keys and was unduly solicitous for his pecuniary interests, he did (somewhat spasmodically, it is true), exert himself to promote the welfare of the island.
After his departure, the English resumed their sway. But they were more considerate officials than before. Moreover, since smuggling had almost disappeared, and the Manx revenue was producing a large and increasing surplus, the Isle of Man came to be regarded more favourably, and, thanks to this fact and to the exertions of the Manx people themselves in 1837, 1844, and 1853,58 it was indulged in a somewhat less stringent customs tariff and an occasional dole towards re-erecting its much neglected public works. This improvement in the state of affairs was somewhat accelerated on the arrival of the liberal-minded Governor Hope in 1846, and, to a still greater extent in 1863, by the assistance of the able and energetic Governor Loch. Both these governors, instead of merely obeying orders from England, had the courage to assist the Manx people in their various controversies with the Imperial Government, with the ultimate result that, during the last year of this period, a measure of at least nominal " Home Rule " was obtained..59
"To the most puissant Prince, John Duke of Atholl, Earl; Strange, Lord of Mann and the Isles.
"We whose names are hereunto subscribed your Grace's Tenants within this Isle — being given to understand that your Grace, being not unmindfull of their peculiar as well as distressfull situation — having no Representative in the Legislature of their own Country elected by themselves, nor any Representative in the Parliament of Great Britain — has been most graciously pleased — by a timely and powerfull Interposition with his Majesty's Ministers to put a stop to the Progress of some Act or Acts of Tynwald passed by the Legislature of this Isle and transmitted to his Majesty's principal Secretary of State — for raising a considerable sum of money by Taxes on the Property real and personal of your Grace's Tenants for unnecessary purposes totally unknown to the Inhabitants of this Country.
"That the mode of Taxation, and the particular subjects which were to be the object of the Act or Acts passed by the Legislature for the purposes we have mentioned are unknown to us — the passing thereof by the Legislature here, being carryed on in the most private and secret manner and no person whatever being admitted to hear their Deliberations.
" That this Isle from the poverty of its soil, the Emigration of the natives to the mother country and elsewhere — its very limited Trade, the great sums annually drawn from it for Salt, Timber, Meal, Cordage, Iron, Coals, Groceries, &c., the great Expense incurred in carrying on its Fisheries, every article used therein being liable to an Insular Duty, added to the peculiar unfortunate circumstance of seven-eighths of the real property within this Isle and held of your Grace, being under mortgage, would render it impossible for the Inhabitants in General to pay the said Taxes and your Grace's Rents and Fines also.
"We therefore beg leave to offer to your Grace, as our natural Patron and Representative, our most humble and gratefull thanks for an Interposition so Seasonable so benevolent and unsollicited — and we beg leave to assure your Grace that we always did, and still continue to place the highest Confidence in your Grace's Paternal Care and attention to the Inhabitants of this Isle."
(Names not given. Loose Paper in Rolls Office.)
" Manxmen, We are called upon to Sign nothing Blindly,— that is right,—but are we to be asleep ? No .,
"A question of the greatest importance to this Country is before the British Parliament.
" Whether the Duke of Atholl shall have farther compensation for Rights sold by his Family to the Crown ? I, and all of you, no doubt, thought the British Parliament were fully competent to judge of His Grace's Claims,—but it seems we were mistaken;—The Honorable House of Keys think otherwise: We must not therefore be longer Silent: Let us unite in a respectful memorial to the Honorable House of Keys, stating our Sentiments.
" But before Signing, let us cooly ask ourselves the following Questions:
" Are we to be Eternally at War ? Is the British Parliament competent to judge of His Grace's Claims ? Ought we not to rely on their impartiality and justice? Ought we blindly to oppose just and Equitable Claims ? Will Parliament admit of any other ? Is it the Duke's interest to oppress us ? Has he ever oppressed us? Cannot we resist if he does ? Who has hitherto been our Friend, and brought us the Benefits We have already received ? Who got our Herring Bounties increased continued, and put upon an Equitable footing ? Who got Protections for the Fishermen ? Who got us Money for Repairs of Harbours and Public Buildings ? Who prevented our Fishing Boats paying Two Guineas each annually, whether they caught Fish or not ? What would have become of us last Year, had we had this Tax to pay ? Who prevented every Shopkeeper from paying Two Guineas annually for liberty to sell Wine and Spirits ? — The Duke !— What is to become of us, should the Duke turn his Back on us ? Who will step forward with equal goodwill and power, to Cherish and Protect us ?
" My Countrymen l think seriously on these things, while it is yet called today, or the Hour of Repentance may come too late.
" April 20th, 1805."
(Printed by T. Whittam.)
"To the Gentlemen of the Keys. The Land-holders, the Merchants, and Inhabitants of the Isle of Man.
" The Hereditary Descendants of your ancient Sovereigns, by His Majesty's Grace and Favor, the Representative of the King within the Island of Man, The Territorial Lord and Natural Protector and Defender of the Rights and Interests of every Inhabitant thereof; is desirous, in the most public way to make known the whole extent of his Aim and View: It is not his desire or wish, to prevent in any degree, the Advantages which flow to the Isle of Man at this time, by Bounties on Herrings, or otherwise: On the contrary, he wishes to Increase and enlarge those Advantages.
" He does not wish, nor has any intention to propose, the Increase of a Farthing on your existing Duties; but only to render the Importation for the Consumption of the Island more easy and expeditious.
" In asking of Parliament for a further Compensation out of the existing Revenues of the Isle of Man, rather than from any other Fund, he is actuated by an ardent wish to link the Prosperity of the Island with his own; to have the means of residing among you in a manner suitable to the Situation he fills; and by such residence' to be able to bring forward Measures for the Improvement of your Agriculture, your Fisheries, your Manufactures, and your Trade.
" One word on the Act of Settlement of 1703: If that Act is in your estimation good, say no more about it: But if any doubts exist, accept from me a full Confirmation of it in whatever mode or shape you chuse.
" Let us cordially unite in Plans for the Good and Prosperity of our nice little Island; let us row in one Boat; let us give a tight pull, and a pull altogether; and suffer me (in right of an ancient Lord of the Island, who, among other Princes, rowed a King of England on the River Dee, some Centuries back) to be Stroak Oar.
" ATHOL.
" Portman Square, April 10, 1805."
1 See Chap. II. § a.*
2 Statutes, vol. i. pp. 297-304.
3 Ibid., pp. 80~320. +
4 Ibid., vol. i. p. 306.
5 For explanation of these payments, see pp. 318-20.
6 Statutes, vol. i. pp. 33~31. ~
7 Ibid., p. 337.*
8 Commissioners' Report, Appendix (D), No. 34. t
9 For discussion of this question, see Book VII.
10 The Keys sent a deputation to London to oppose the Bill, which
would have revoked important provisions in the Act of
Settlement, and would have given the duke, through his official,
the seneschal, greatly increased powers over the land. In 1783,
another petition appeared in the Journal of the House of Commons, but
no steps were taken on account of it.
11 Then an M.H.K.; afterwards High Bailiff of Douglas, and finally
deemster.
12 Parliamentary Register, vol. xxi. p. 348, quoted in The Land of
Home Rule, p. 228. The duke seems to have chiefly objected to the
loss of the herring custom, or payment of herrings. He gave evidence,
and cross-examined both Sir G. Moore and John Cosnahan. His advocate
urged the importance of making a law that deeds of all sorts should
be entered in the Lord's Courts, and he pointed out that the duke's
right to game was quite defeated by the provision that leave to shoot
it could be granted by the governor because he was the " King's
Governor " (Pamphlet, dated 1783).
13 In 1788, he wrote as follows to his tenants: " I am so far from
having any design of disputing the rights of any of my tenants that
hold any property or estate . . . that if any person whatsoever
should think his estate not sufficiently scoured under the Act of
Settlement, I am willing and ready to give any further security that
can be advised or thought necessary " (Lib. Vast )
14 Parl Register, vol. xliv. p. 307 (Land of Home Rule,
p224).
15 He and Norris Moore had been sent as a deputation to London by
the Keys. Cosnahan made an able and brilliant speech at the Bar of
the House
16 Parl. Register, vol. xliv. pp. 385-395 (Land
of Home Rule p224).
17 Parl. Register, vol. xliv. p. 661.
18 I.e., the free conveyance of turf and other articles by the
tenants
19 see Appendix A.
20 In 1788, he received a letter of thanks from some of the Manx
people for doing this.
21 I.e., of manorial rights, &c.
22 Commissioners' Report, Appendix (A), No. 43.
23 Report, p. 7.
24 Ibid., p. 10, i,.e., if the Tynwald Court had agreed to
increasing the duties, it would not have consented to the duke taking
the whole of the resulting surplus..
25 Commissioners' Report, App. (A), p. 21.
26 Ibid., p. 22.
27 Ibid., p. 85.
28 Ibid., p. 86.
29 The Land of Home Rule, pp. 236-7.
30 Commissioners' Report, Appendix (A), No. 28.
31 Ibid p, 18.
32 Feltham (Manx
Soc., vol. vi. p. 131).
33 MS. letter of Governor Shaw's, March 11, 1795; also Appendix
A.
34 * Land of Home Rule, pp. 230-1
35 It was certainly a curious way of obtaining such an end The letter
was printed as a " broadside," dated April 10, 1805 which was posted
on the walls, &c., in the island (see Appendix C)
36 Letter of Messrs. Bridson and Stowell (Pamphlet, p. 7).
37 For their report about the revenue at this time, see Chap. II.
§ 4. +
38 45 Geo. III. c. 13.
39 Part. Deb., vol. v. pp. 776-78 (Land of Home Rule, p.
230).
40 The one-fourth of the customs duties was commuted for £3,000
a year.
41 The keys, when protesting to the Crown against the ecclesiastical
members being retained in the Council, had declared that the duke's
interests " were, as a subject, often in opposition to those of the
Crown and generally at variance with those of the people " (Manks
Advertiser).
42 Manks Advertiser.
43 Pamphlet (1824), p. 37. " These remarks were loudly cheered by
an assembled concourse of the most respectable natives and other
inhabitants " (Isle of Man Gazette).
44 They accused him of unconstitutional conduct and of exercising
"unwarrantable influence" in which "terror" was included (Keys'
Journals).
45 In this case the deemster in question richly deserved his
dismissal, and, moreover, it was not ordered by the duke, but by the
Secretary of State.
46 Pamphlet (1824).
47 The duke's apologist declared that he had a right to do this.
48 See p. 661.
49 * 6 Geo. IV. c. 84.
50 Of this the patronage of the bishopric, with 14 advowsons, was
valued at £100,000. ~
51 10 Geo. IV. c. 50.
52 By Act 1 Geo. IV. c. 1.
53 Gell (Manx
Soc., vol. xii. pp. 140-152).
54 In 1765, £46,000 for sovereignty and £24,000 for
customs; annunity of the duchess from 1765 to 1804, £1,740
annually (ie,£2,000 Irish) = £69,600; £3,000 a year
from the customs to the duke, her son, between 1805 and 1826 =
£60,000, and £150,000 in 1826.
55 Lord's rents, £34,200; royalties, &c., £132,944.
56 Leaving out of sight the advantage of suppressing the smuggling
and the disadvantage of receiving no payment from the island for
naval and military protection before 1866.
57 See pp. 613-4, and Appendices C and D.
58 See pp. 605-614.*
59 See p. 812.
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Any comments, errors or omissions
gratefully received The
Editor |
||