[Appendix A(44) 1792 Report of Commissioners of Inquiry]

N° 44.

LETTER from the Duke of ATHOLL,

Gentlemen, London, January 14, 1791 I Think it incumbent upon me shortly to answer some assertions made by Sir W, Busk Attorney General of the Isle of Man, by which he endeavours to shew, that some of the rights which I claim as reserved are appendages of royalty; and endeavours to insinuate, rather than assert, that others, by being revested in my family, might be made a bad use of

First the Carriage Services, or Works of Tenants,

To these I found my claim on the Act of Settlement, a manerial transaction, as I conceive between the Lord and his tenants, and which was greatly more beneficial, in the nature of it, to the inhabitants than to the Lord of the Ile of Man. This Act of Settlement every islander esteems as being that which fixed their tenures ; and on my part, I have most publicly declared, that I consider it as inviolable. In that act these services are expressly defined ; after which definition is it proceeds to say: "And it is hereby declared, that these carriages shall be taken for THE LORDS USE, AS HIS LORDSHIP or the Governor for the time being shall think fit to employ them, and that no tenant shall be exempt but such as have been formerly accustomed."

The Governor took these as a perquisite, after, perhaps, employing some in repairs or occasional work. But was not this to be remedied whenever the Lord thought proper, and that too under the very words of the act? Upon my word I was near saying, that it is a matter of wonder to me how a professional man, such as Sir Wadsworth Busk ought to be, can be so absurd, as to endeavour to wade into the obscurity of remote ages to puzzle rather than find out from whence these services were derived, and to what purposes they ought to be appropriated, when, by a reference to the Act of Settlement in 1703-4, he may see at once not only what they consist of, but how they are to be applied.

Under the reservation of Services, or Works of Tenants, my father asserted, and I assert, that these Carriages were reserved. I do not know what great legal opinion Sir W. Busk alludes to in corroboration of his own, that these Services are appendages of royalty, and not reserved: but I beg leave to subjoin what Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mansfield, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, reported to the Lords of the Treasury in 1781; after going at some length into this point, they conclude by saying, "We certify to your Lordships, that it appears to us that this Service was intended by the act to be reserved to His Grace, under the words Services, or Works of Tenants, either free or customary, and ought to be so declared."

With respect to the Herring Custom, the origin, in my opinion, was manerial ; the boats employed at first paid a proportion of fish, afterward a commutation of so much money on each boat; and they had the privilege in consequence of drawing up their boats, and drying their nets on any part of the territorial property, It is asserted, that they were originally paid to the Garrisons, and delivered only there, But this is not true; for they were delivered at Douglas too, where there was no garrison, But supposing the question, Whether it is a sovereign or manerial right in its origin out of the case, considering it only as necessary, or not necessary, to be vested in the public ? I beg leave, against the assertions of Sir W. Busk, to place the examinations of the Revenue Officers of the Isle of Man, and with this observation, that I am at a loss to know what he means by a power of fitting out vessels, which might commit fraud, being lodged in my family if we should possess this right, (the duty being, in fact, collected on shore, and no vessel employed in it,) I conclude this head.

With respect to the Bay Fishings, I am equally at a loss to know what he means by asserting that vessels might be fitted out under that pretence, and commit fraud. I conceive, that every Lord of a manor, or proprietor, who has a grant of fishings in Great Britain, may exercise that right where his grounds adjoin the sea. These Bay Fishings consist of some places clear of rock, where a net may be drawn; one end of which, or the rope, is always on shore.

His observations on the uses to which the Castle of Peele might be put are most extraordinary. By the same mode of reasoning I ought instantly to be stripped of the island called the Calf; it is much better supplied with caves, and may be made a receptacle for smuggling to a much greater extent. The fact is, I think it an extreme hard case, that when the Public took the Isle of Man from my family, we were left neither a house, nor a situation for one; and I wish for the old seat of my ancestors - Peele. The assertion, that there are caves about it which might be turned to nefarious purposes, really does not deserve a serious answer.

Wrecks of the Sea were possessed generally by my ancestors, and that under the very words which are contained in the reservations, The subdenominations mentioned by Sir W, Busk were unkown in the Isle of Man. His apprehensions of mischiefs arising to the revenues should this right continue to be generally exercised by my family, are, in my opinion, ill-founded and absurd.

He says, "That though it may not be absolutely necessary for these rights to be vested in the Crown for the purpose of preventing smuggling yet that they may in a greater or less degree be made the means of defrauding the revenue." - This is very loose language for an Attorney General. Does he mean that it is a determined system of my family to defraud the revenue, and that we ought to be watched and guarded as the most nefarious characters in the world? I think he dare not make such assertions and yet much of his reasoning seems to assume this point it would appear too by the way in which he has made other assertions, that the island was thrown into great difficulties, approaching nearly to a calamity, by the caveats entered against Bills of Regulation, Police, &c, &c. &c. The two bills I entered a caveat against I have treated more fully in another paper: I shall shortly say, the first was a Bill of Taxation, injurious to the interests of the Crown, the People, and myself; which bill Sir W. Busk did not sign, on account of the Rights of the Crown (as I have always understood) being attacked by it. This then cannot be the bill he complains of not being pasted. The other was to restore the Grand Inquest and Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Keys, which, in my opinion, ought rather to be done by a revision and amendment of the acts of 1777, than by a new bill. This state of the case will not bear the Attorney General out in the assertions he is pleased to make.

As to the personal allusions and invectives Sir Wadsworth Busk has amused his fancy with, I consider them as the wild images and conjectures of his own brain, and therefore think much beneath me to enter into a refutation of. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your most obedient humble fervant,

ATHOLL

To John Spranger, Wm Grant, Wm Osgoode, Wm Roe, and David Reid, Esquires, Commissioners of Inquiry for the Isle of Man.

Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received The Editor HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 2021