Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received
The Editor
HTML Transcription
© F.Coakley , 2022
|
Ref
|
Date
|
Brief Description
|
|---|---|---|
| AP_X68(2nd)_1 |
20.11.1822
|
Duke to Peel. Having heard that the Keys had drawn up a statement of charges against him,which had been sent to Mr. Hebhouse under instructions that they were to be kept secret,he wrote to Mr.Peel and asked for a copy of them. Mr. Dawson's reply (No.X/68-22) had shown that neither he nor Mr.Peel was aware of this,but as the Duke was assured that they had reached Mr.Hebhouse he again asked for a copy of them. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_2 |
27.11.1822
|
Duke to Peel. Two persons have been indicted for murder, but as the Attorney General is not in the Island they cannot be brought to trial. As he is unlikely to return soon he asks that an acting Att.Gen. may be appointed,and suggests either Mr.Bell or Mr.James Quirk. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_3 |
27.11.1822
|
Duke to Peel. with an additional note to support his letter of the 29th Oct. (X/68-24) complaining against the Lt.Gov. (copy) |
| AP_X68(2nd)_4 |
28.11.1822
|
Peel to Duke. A communication signed by seventeen of the Keys had been sent him, but hoping that the discussions and recriminations which were disturbing the Island would die down on the Duke's return he had not sent him a copy of it. But as the Duke's last letter has made him relinquish that hope he will shortly write to him with regard to the Key's letter and send him such extract from it as he thinks to be necessary. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_5 |
4.12.1822
|
Duke to Peel. To show how sincerely,though in vain,he wished animosity in the Island to cease he enclosed (missing N.M.) a copy of his address to Tynwald on the 5th July. This was an olive branch which had the Keys not been actuated by a spirit of faction and a determined resistance,they would not have declined. But at subsequent meeting this spirit evinced itself more strongly,and a Mr. Dunlop,one of the leading members,personally insulted him with the most improper language,gestures and manner in the open Court. In these circumstances he considered conciliation to be in vain,while the dignity of his situation and his own character made further overtures impossible. At this point he left the Island,but as seen as he had done so the Lt.Gov.had summoned Tynwald and told the Keys that he fully agreed with them and approved of their conduct,. Since then he (the writer) has had no commnication with the Keys,as there has been no cause to assemble them. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_6 |
4.12.1822
|
Duke to Peel. Enclosing a letter from Deemster Heywood (Missing N.M.) |
| AP_X68(2nd)_7 |
7.12.1822
|
Peel to Duke. advising him of the complaints made by the Keys,which were:-
the seizure of wrecked goods;pulling down and appropriating a Court House;taking
possession of,and building on Waste ground in two of the harbours to the
injury of the Public; laying claim to Flotsam, Jstsam and Treasure-trove
- which the Keys assert to belong to the Crown; ordering the discharge from
custody of a rioter named Shimmin who,for assaulting in Court one of the
witnesses against him,had been sentenced to imprisonment and fines;and for
threatening to dismiss the High Constable if he attempted to arrest Shimmin
and other rioters against whom Warrants had been issued. Also that he had
stopped preceedings against other rioters. Yet another complaint was that
he had made a speech to the Keys in which he described a Memorial which
they had prepared as "a base,false and scandalous libel which was untrue"
and had threatened with prosecution any of the signatories who did not come
forward and express his contrition. That he had refused in a peremptory
manner to have a copy of this speech be placed on record,or to have it considered
by the House. The next complaint was that he had had brought to court two
men charged with inoculating their own and other children and obliged them
to enter into Bonds not to do so in future. Lastly there was the improper
attitude he had taken up towards Deemster Gawne in connection with the trial
of Mr. McCrone. On all these matters his comments are asked for,while the
writer adds that though the Keys had on many occasions acted towards the
Duke in an improper manner it was probably because the Duke had irritated
them,and to suggest that more conciliatory language on his part would produce
beneficial effects. (For papers connected with this see AP_X68(3rd)_28 to 32.) |
| AP_X68(2nd)_8 | - copy of AP_X68(2nd)_7 - | |
| AP_X68(2nd)_9 | - copy of AP_X68(2nd)_7 - | |
| AP_X68(2nd)_10 |
11.12.1822
|
Duke to Peel. promising an answer to AP_X68(2nd)_7. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_11 |
11.12.1822
|
Duke to Peel. re the refusal of the post of Att.Gen. by Mr. Bell. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_12 |
11.12.1822
|
Duke to Peel. enclosing a report (missing N.M.) on the duties of the Receiver General before and after the Revestment,and stating his view that the present Rec.Gen. had a right to a seat in the Council and the precedence of the first Temporal Officer in the Island after the Gov. or Lt.Gov. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_13 |
29.1.1823
|
Duke to Peel. suggesting the appointment of a Commission to examine into complaints made by Mr.Fell of Douglas against Deemster Gawne. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_14 |
19.2.1823
|
Duke to Peel. forwarding papers. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_15 |
22.2.1823
|
Duke to Peel. forwarding papers. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_16 |
28.2.1823
|
Peel to Duke. replying to the Duke's comments on the complaints from the Keys. Considers that his conduct with regard to Shimmin ( see AP_X68(2nd)_7) was based on a misunderstanding of the Law,and was ill-advised, Considering the circumstances the time and place of his speech to the Keys was unhappily chosen, With regard to the inoculation the Duke had allowed his unndoubtedly good intentions to carry him too far,as the men had not actually done anything illegal. The Duke's observations to Deemster Gawne in regard to the trial of McCrone may not have been intended to influence him in the administration of justice, but they certainly might have been held to do so. He dees not think he would have shown impartiality had he referred otherwise than he did to the behaviour of the Duke towards the Keys,which he considers to have aided to the ill feeling between them. He is now disposed to bury all that has passed in oblivion, in the hope that nothing will in the future interrupt that harmony between the Governor and the Legislative Body which is necessary to the furtherance of the King's service, |
| AP_X68(2nd)_17 | - copy of AP_X68(2nd)_16 - | |
| AP_X68(2nd)_18 |
3.3.1823
|
Duke to Peel. enclosing AP_X68(2nd)_19. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_19 |
|
Copy of sentence of a fine of ten pounds and a years imprisonment on J.Kelly and W.Shimmin, (27.11.1821) and certificate from the Gaoler at Castle Rushen that they were released by order of the Duke on 15th Nov. 1822 |
| AP_X68(2nd)_20 | Copy of order from Court to Gaoler for the imprisonment of Kelly and Shimmin for a year, and further until their fine be paid, | |
| AP_X68(2nd)_21 |
6.3.1823
|
Duke to Peel. forwarding Deemster Gawne's minutes on the trial of Philip Fargher,condemned to death for sheep stealing (Missing N.M.) and declaring that he can make no comments thereon until he has had an opportunity to consult with the Att.Gen. who is expected in the Island in five days time. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_22 |
12.3.1823
|
Duke to Peel. praying that the King may be asked to commute the above sentence to one of transportation for life. |
| AP_X68(2nd)_23 |
12.3.1823
|
Duke to Peel. asking that the King may be asked to give assent to the Act, passed 24th Dec.,regarding the brewing of beer from malt so that it may become law as soon as possible, |
| AP_X68(2nd)_24 |
19.3.1823
|
Duke to Peel. transmitting the report of a trial and conviction for murder (missing N.M.) in which he can see no extenuating circumstances, |
| AP_X68(2nd)_25 |
18.3.1823
|
Duke to Peel. The inquiry into the conduct of Deemster Gawne during his trial of Mr.Fell has occupied three days. It has been conducted with the greatest possible solemnity and fairness. As a result of it the Duke is convinced that the Deemster's conduct was corrupt and oppresive;that he has a criminal connection with the plaintiff, Cath. McBride which influenced him so much that his judgement on Fell,the defendant,was biased to such an extent as to disqualify him acting any longer as a magistrate. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received
The Editor |
||