"THE SECOND EPISODE ON ILLIAM DHONE."

Mr. Caine desires to preface the reproduction of this paper with the following note:—

Immediatety after this paper was delivered, information came to light concerning "Illiam Dhone" which is entirely new to Manx students, and for which the Island is indebted to Mr. Richard Ainsworth, of Cleveleys, near Blackpool, author of an article published in the "Accrington Observer & Times," in April. 1935. Mr. Ainsworth has examined deeds which show that in 1633, William Christian, who is described variously as "of Little Harwood" and 'of Ronaldsway in the Isle of Man," purchased lands at Sparth, situate in Clayton. Harwood, and Rishton—which areas are in the nelghbourhood of Accrington— together with household goods and coalpits, for £900. In 1637, he executed a deed conveying Sparth and two other plots of land called Birdholme and Warthe, to Roger Nowell and Laurence Duxbury, to hold in trust for him during his life, with remainder to his wife for her life in lieu of dower, remainder to his eldest son, and remainder to other sons in order. He made this settlement "in consequence of £600 paid by Alice, late wife of George Cockshutt, of Great Harwood, deceased, and in consequence of the affection he has for Elizabeth his wife." Roger Nowell, one of these trustees, was subsequently Governor of the Isle of Man, and was brother to Henry Nowell, who as Deputy-Governor presided over Christian's trial. Mr Ainsworth states that Christian lived on his property at Sparth until his appointment as Receiver-General of the Isle of Man, and returned to it when he was dismissed from that office in 1658. His eldest son, George Christian, was in possession of Sparth in 1669, and after taking an account of the profits of coal gotten in it, sold it in 1672 to Thomas Whalley, who already had a mortgage in it.

Illiam Dhone's house at Sparth

In the light of this information, I have modified one or two passages in the paper as read to the Society.

The first episode in the career of William Christian, of Ronaldsway, has often been debated, and it will remain debateable as long as an interest is taken in Manx history. It is reasonably clear that, whatever motives guided him, Christian"s surrender of the Isle of Man to the forces of the Commonwealth was the right step to take in the interests of his country. Resistance would have subjected the Island to the terrors of military conquest; a surrender negotiated by the Countess of Derby would probably have made no provision for the Island's separate constitution, for continuing the inhabitants in their ancient laws and liberties. And even if the Commonwealth forces had not arrived at that particular time, advantage would have been taken of the Earl's capture to demand from the Countess the redress of grievances. The insurrection which Christian led was officered by men of standing in all parts of the Island. It was a popular movement: the Manx Society's editors have appropriately entitled it "The Manx Rebellion." It is dramatising the situation far too much, it makes it a mere personal transaction between Christian and the Countess, to regard him as a vulgar coward or a vulgar sneak.

Unless—unless he is proved by his subsequent acts to be a vulgar embezzler. Those who regard him as a patriot and martyr meet with a serious stumbling-block when they, learn that in 1659, eight years after the insurrection, the Commonwealth Governor James Chaloner, accused him of misappropriating public funds, and, on his departure from the Island, sequestered part of his estates; or when they read in his dying speech that while in London he was clapped into prison upon an action for £20,000.

The object of this paper is to enquire whether, in this Matter as in the matter of the insurrection, Christian acted upon public grounds.

The enquiry is suggested by an event recorded in Mr. A. W. Moore's History of the Isle of Man, but given greater detail in one of the Castle Rushen documents which have during the last four or five years appeared in that invaluable and extraordinarily interesting publication, "The Manx Museum Journal." On November 22nd, 1659, Lieutenant John Hathorne, commander of the garrison of Peel Castle, arrested Governor Chaloner and kept him imprisoned in the Castle for fifteen days. He released him, as appears from the document, upon his giving a bond for £5,000 that for the time being he would not act as Governor. The British Parliament ordered Chaloner to be set at liberty, and the tables being turned upon Hathorne. he was asked, while in prison at Castle Rushen, for an explanation of his conduct. One of the "interrogatories" propounded. to him was whether he had received letters from Mr William Christian, "sometime receiver of this Isle," and whether the. said Receiver Christian encouraged him before these actions. of his, or concurred with him after. He refused to answer, and. the inference to be drawn is that Christian was a party to the coup, and probably its instigator.

This, rather than the withholding of the money complained of by Chaloner, would appear to be the second episode in the career of Illiam Dhone.

Mr. Moore, in his brief description of this incident, endeavours to "look at it by the light of events in England." What were those events? Oliver Cromwell died on September 3rd, 1658. His son, Richard, who succeeded him as Protector, was incapable of governing, and the country became a prey to dissensions between the army and the Parliament. At the outset, both parties desired a democratic constitution established and guaranteed by law, but the army regarded itself as best qualified, in the meantime, to maintain the liberties which had been obtained by, the sword. Naturally, Parliament did not accept that view, and the time which it was intended to spend in preparing the constitution was in fact spent in mutual offence and defence. The excluded members of the Long Parliament. who were constantly demanding readmission, were for the most part presbyterians. They were thus committed to monarchy, and they also held that the State should set up one form of religion, their own, and suppress the others, The army derived its energy from the religious enthusiasm of many sects.

The commander-in-chief in England at various significant. dates was General Fleetwood, Oliver Cromwell's son-in-law, and another distinguished military. leader was General Lambert. The commander in Scotland was General Monk, the man who ultimately took the action by which King Charles II. was. brought back. On May 7th, 1659, the protectorate was dissolved, and Richard Cromwell retired into private life. The dissensions. continued, until Lambert forcibly expelled the Parliament, and Fleetwood, who had been obliged to share his authority with others, was restored as commander-in-chief. Monk decided to defend the prerogatives of Parliament, marched part of his. army into England, negotiated fruitlessly with Lambert, and entered London on February 3rd. In the meantime, Parliament recommenced its meetings, on December 26th. The King was proclaimed on May. 8th.

Let us compare the important dates among these happenings: With the dates which concern James Chaloner, John Hathorne and William Christian. Chaloner's order complaining that: Christian had withdrawn himself from the isle at a time when he stood on his account for "divers thousands of pounds" was written on July 26th, 1659, over two months after the fall of lhe Protector. Lambert expelled the Parliament on October 12th; Monk wrote in protest during the same month; Monk's and Lambert's forces were marching towards each other during November. Hathorne imprisoned Chaloner on November 22nd. Monk broke off the negotiations gn December 24th; Parliament. met two days later, and the order of Parliament directing Chaloner's release is dated December 27th.

After the Governor had been conveyed to Peel Castle, the officers of the Isle, and members of the House of Keys, went there to hear Hathorne's explanation. He told them, according to Mr. Moore, that his action "was for the preservation of the peace of the Island and the saftie of the garrisons there being manie fears and jealousies abroad of Generall Monk's being in armes in opposition to the army in England. .. . and that he hath sent to acquaint the Lord Fleetwood herewith and expects his answer therein suddenly." In his statement made in prison four months later, Hathorne said "hee did it in regard hee had received intelligence that there was a designe to surprize the garrison at Castle Peele, and that he did it in order of the peace and saftie of the Island, having intelligence that there was a boate sent in the night tyme to Scotland or England by the Governor." He also said that he "had no particular order or power to detayne the governor in Castle Peele, but that after hee was so detayned he had orders from Generall Fleetwood to detayne him the said Gouvnr under straynt until further orders." He exacted the bond from the Governor "fearing that if hee had not taken him so engadged he might have raised the countrey against the garrisons." The author of the article on James Chaloner in the Dictionary cf National Biography says outright that when Monk marched against Lambert, Chaloner attempted to secure the Isle of Man for the parliamentary party but was seized by the partisans of the army and imprisoned in Peel Castle. Chaloner was himself a member of Parliament, and in respect of the Isle of Man, was an appointee of Sir Thomas Fairfax, his cousin by Marriage, who at that time was coming to terms with Monk, and by the end of the year had raised a military force in Yorkshire and taken the city of Yerk on behalf of the Parliament. His brother. Sir Thomas Chaloner, also sat in Parliament and busied himself there, and on its expulsion he was imprisoned by order of General Fleetwood.

That Hathorne's act was in the nature of a move of State is further shown by the fact, as set out in the interrogatories and, their answers, that he levied taxes during the disability of the Governor, and that he also imprisoned Arthur Squibb, Christian's successor as Receiver; Richard Tyldesley, controller; Thomas Norris, register, and ten other persons, alleging the same reason as before, "the peace of the island and saftie of ye garrisons." These people appear to have been part of the company of officers and Keys who went to Peel Castle to hear what Hathorne had to say. It is very interesting to find that five of them — Thomas Huddleston, Thomas Norris, Richard Tyldesley, Richard Calcott, and William Quayle — were among the Court which passed sentence on Illiam Dhone three years later.

It is evident that in November of 1659, Christian was in some place where he had access to good information. Accepting the latest knowledge concerning him, he was then a landed gentleman, living in the Derby sphere of influence. He was, relatively, near to another important sphere of influence, that of Lord Fairfax, the former commander-in-chief of the Parliamentary army, and a man whose movements all the Royalists in the country would consider it worth while to watch. When Fairfax opened negotiations with Monk, it would: be clear to anyone interested that the line taken by Fairfax would be the line taken by the Governor of the Isle of Man. Christian apparently decided in the middle of November that this was the time to act. As, in 1651, he took the view that the Commonwealth were the winning side, and that the Isle of Man had better identify itself with them, so in 1659 he may have believed that the army was about to defeat the Parliament, and that the Isle of Man had better be on the side of the army. He was entitled to feel some responsibility, for the Island's welfare; he had been one of its leading citizens, and had (in 1656—1658) been its Governor. He may also, of course, have felt a grudge against the man who replaced him. Hathorne may also have had a grievance; it is significant that in January, 1659, when Chaloner received a military commission from Parliament in respect of the Isle of Man, with the right to recommend a commander for the second company (he himself commanding the first), he recommended Samuel Rose, and not Hathorne — though, as will be shown a little later, Hathorne had apparently been in the Island for elght years.

That Christian was a partisan in any of the issues then agitating England is very doubtful. But some of his associates in this "second episcde," men whom Chaloner imprisoned at the same time as Hathorne, certainly were believers in popular government. Edward Christian, the ex-Governor whom the Earl of Derby had kept in prison for eight years, had suffered greatly in that cause; Ewan Curghey, of Ballakillingan, had been an impetuous leader in the 1651 insurrection. It is true that they were kinsmen or connections of Illiam Dhone. In his dying speech, Christian declared that he had always been a faithful member of the Church of England. But General Fleetwood, from whom Hathorne received confirmation of his actions, was a fanatical Baptist. The parish register of Malew, as edited by Archdeacon Gill for "The Manx Note Book," shows that in 1664, "John Hathorne son to Jo: being unbaptised 5 years was by the Ld. Bopes order bapt. 17th of July." The fact that his child was compulsorily baptised four years after the Restoration indicates, surely, that Hatnorne was one of the 'sectaries'. Chaloner, on the other hand, was a stickler for Church order, and persecuted the Quakers.

The thought suggests itself — Did Christian, in failing to hand over to Chaloner "divers taousands of pounds," do so upon public grounds? May it be that he held the balance of the Manx revenues on behalf of that party in the English commonwealth with whom: he had sided, or that, after a certain stage, he refused to recognise the authority of Governor Chaloner? Was the action brought against him later for £20,000 — an enormous. debt for a man in Christian's position — a way of making him personally accountable for acts of a political nature?

The evidence for such a supposition is not very strong. Mr. Moore states that Chaloner's charge was that of having misappropriated, not the revenues in general, but the revenues. of the sequestered bishopric. Christian did not deny Chaloner's right to demand an account — a special commission had been. appointed by Sir Thomas Fairfax, no doubt upon Chaloner's representations — for, although he absented himself from the Island, his son, George, took un his affairs, and produced a list of payments made by him which put the balance in his favour. Mr. Moore is one's authority here, and the sums which he mentions are far short of "divers thousands of pounds." Mr Moore formed the conclusion (in volume 6 of the "Manx Note Book") that the combination of the offices of Receiver and Governor proved too much for Christian's integrity; but he does not repeat that in his history or in his biography of William Christian in "Manx Worthies." If Christian owned and worked a coal mine right through from 1633 to 1662, it was possible for him to incur liabilities which would be unexplainable by his circumstances in the Isle of Man.

The best evidence for Christian's integrity is found in an English State paper of 1655. On the 6th July of that year, an information was laid before the Commissioners of Sequestration that there was in the hands of William Christian, Receiver-General of the rents and revenue of the Isle of Man, £1,000 or thereabouts, rents received for the years 1648 to 1651, payable to the Commonwealth for the delinquency of the late Earl of Derby. "There is in the hands of Captain Matthew Cadnell, Governor of the said Isle," the informer went on, "£750, three half-years at the rate of £500 payable out of the revenues to ihe Commonwealth by the Lord of the Isle, and another £250 at Michaelmas next, and so continually each half year. There is in the hands of these, or of Captain Francis Duckenfield or Ensign John Hathorne, several parcels of money, plate, and other goods taken from pirates in 1651, about the reducing of the Island, belonging to the Commonwealth, to the value of £100 and upwards." In the continuation of this series of State papers, William Christian makes a reply, "that he never had any, money in his hands whereby he might be charged."

Here is a transaction which Christian's adversaries in the proceedings would probably have called misappropriation. But clearly it was not fraudulent. A fellow defendant was the actual Governor of the Island. Another was Captain Francis Duckenfield, to whom the Andreas fort was surrendered at the time of the insurrection, and presumably a relative of the Colonel Duckenfield who commanded the invading force. A third was our acquaintance, John Hathorne. He makes his debut in the Island, apparently, as a junior officer in the army which invaded it. Obviously, Christian was contending that the rents of the Isle of Man were the public revenue of the country, and not the private property of the Earl, to be confiscated by Parliament for his "delinquency." He was a statesman of the Isle of Man, expressing the Manx point of view. Apparently he succeeded, for there is no record of any attempt being made to recover the money, and a year later Christian was accepted as Governor. Of course, the person primarily concerned in financial contributions from the Isle of 'Man at this time was its lord, Sir Thomas Fairfax. But is it not possible that there were public grounds which Christian could have pleaded, if he had thought it prudent, in his controversy with Chaloner?

Against that view must be set some unfavourable opinions of Christian by contemporary. Manxmen. In 1654, James Banks was sentenced to lose his ears for "having spoken scandalous and treasonable words against the Receiver and Deemster Christian." In 1657, Samsbury Radcliffe received the same sentence for speaking "many foul and scandalous words" against Christian and his brother the Deemster. These two offenders were prominent public men, and had participated with Christian in the rising of 1651. And there is a quaint rhyme "hitting off" a transaction in 1646, when, after the Earl had made unexpected claims upon a corn-mill owned by Christian's father the elder Deemster, and on the Calf Island, owned by Richard Stevenson, the pair gave a dinner in the Earl's honour — the precise expression is that they feasted him. 'The rhyme goes:—

Will did invite his guests; they eat their fill;
He gave them bread that robbed his father's mill.
But was not Dick the madder man by half,
To give him veal that stole away his calf?

The impression conveyed by this incident is, to put it plainly, that Christian had no fine sense of dignity or of honour.

This impression is deepened by incidents which occurred after Charles Stuart had been restored to the Kingdom of England, and Charles Stanley to the lordship of Man. Governor Henry. Nowell writes to his friend, Roger Kenyon, in 1662, about some information brought to him by Mr William Christian. And Archdeacon Gill, when editing the Malew register, remembered a note in Keble's "Life of Bishop Wilson,' that when Earl Charles, in July, 1660, issued a commission from Derby House in Westminster, "in order to the settlings of religion and all ecclesiastical affayres as they were in my late father's tyme," one of the witnesses was William Christian. Really. it would appear that Christian conceived the idea of saving his skin by seeking the Earl out and trusting to his own gifts of persuasion.

Another series of English State papers, while not bearing directly upon these transactions, may be cited because they relate to William Christian, and have only recently been investigated. Mr Moore had seen one of them, for he tells of William Christian and John Sharples, "controller" of the Island at the time of the insurrection, having been accused of "delinquency" against the Commonwealth, and assumes that this must have been some other William Christian. It was not. The Commissioners of Sequestration, who were exacting annual penalties from those who had borne arms against the Commonwealth, sought for English estates of "such as were resident in the Isle of Man before the same was reduced to the Parliament's obedience." They found that John Sharples and William Christian, officers of the Earl of Derby at the time of his leaving the Isle of Man to take up arms for the new King, had estates in Lancashire. They did not then know that Christian had done the Parliament's work in the Island before the Parliament's forces got there, and that Sharples had assisted him. Colonel Duckenfield had to write stating that he "found Mr Christian instrumental in the seasonable gaining of that Isle." Evidence was taken, and in a little over a year the estates were released from seizure, Christian's estate was situated at Freckleton, near Preston.

Some of those who describe Illiam Dhone as a martyr may have reached that conclusion through over-sentimentalism. They are moved by the fact that he suffered the penalty of death. Equally, some who condemn him may sacrifice logic to sympathy in the case of the Earl of Derby. He was put to death after he had surrendered in battle, on terms of quarter, and he was taken for execution to Bolton, the place where, in 1644, he had scored a notable triumph for the King. There came into my hands quite casually, about a year ago, a copy of the "Book of Bolton," insued in 1929 as the outcome of a demand for "an authoritative publication advertising the industries of the borough and the suitability, of the town as a centre for new industrial enterprises." In the Earl of Derby's capture of Bolton, the town's chronicler says, "no mercy was shown to the defenders, whilst many of the inhabitants were also slain. The most modest contemporary estimate places the killed at 1,290 to 1,500. This needless bloodshed aroused the greatest indignation."

[Mr. Caine desires his paper to have the following addendum:—

Since writing the above, I have discovered the following. document, which has a clear bearing upon "the second episode of Iliam Dhone." It belongs to the Liber Scaccarius of 1659, but has been taken from its place and inserted in the book of 1761:

The humble petition of Ew. Curghy to the Hon. James. Chaloner, Esquire, and Governor of this Isle.

Wherein he showeth how yt a commission being lately sent. by ye Lord General fleetwood to require some persons in ye Island (your peticon being one of ym) for examinacons touching Capt. Rose, and whereas your peticon understands yt your Hon. was pleased to declare last Monday yt whoso of ye inhabitants. did pr'sum to act by vertue of ye said comission should not. only bee imprisoned, but also should have hands laid on his estate, because yt it would not only bee against ye thrise honblle Lords p'rogative, but also against ye lawes and customes of ye Island; all which your peticon is ignorant of.

The pr'misses considered, your peticon's humble request is, yt your Hon. will be pleased ta make an order yt peticon shall not act as required by vertue of ye said comission, yet so your peticon may be freed from future troubles or inconveniences yt possibly may ensue.

EW. CURGHYE, Castletowne, ye 10th day of Novem. 1659.

Whereas ye peticon setts forth ye emission of a comission. from ye right honble Cha. Lord fleetwood, ye execucon where- of among certayne others, is comitted to ye said peticon a native inhabitant and leigman to ye noble Lord of this Island, and in. regard this Island is net subject to ye lawes, practize, and orders of England, and yt noo man of comissions or writts of what quality soever issued out doo extend to this place without ye privittie and approbacon of ye present Lord of ye same, and being well assured yt ye honble ye Lord fleetwood was not duly informed of ye jurisdicon and constitution of this Island at ye granting thereof. being conscious of his [? illegible: apparently, "responsibility"] for ye regulacon thereof. and of all right to bee had of ye Lord Fairfax, Lord and owner of this Island, in this behalf, and forasmuch as ye Lord is not privie thereto, nor ye same by his approbacon transmitted unto myself as Governor or others ye officers of this Island, as ye priviledge and pr'rogative of ye place requireth, and knowing ye integritie and affection of ye Lord fleetwood to bee rather for ye confirmacon than for ye abrogacon of ye Lord Fairfax or of any other ye good people of ye nacon their pr'rogatives and jurisdicon, I have therefore in discharge of my duty according to ye trust in mee reposed adjudged and thought it but just and lawfull to prohibitt ye execucon of ye said comission by ye peticon until ye same bee by ye Lord Fairfax approbacon directed and required, and until ye Lord ffleetwood shall be duly possessed and informed of ye constitution of this Isle.
JAMES CHALONER.

This "procedure and decretal" was quoted by John Quayle, Collector and Judge of the Admiralty Court, in protest against a commission from the Lieutenant. of the High Admiralty Court in England, giving authority to other persons.




Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received MNB Editor HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 2023