of them to consider it a great advantage to the country; the Duke however was ever afterwards much disliked on this account. A song, of which the following is a verse, was composed on the occasion, and is well remembered to this day: "For the babes unborn will rue the day, That the Isle of Man was sold away; For there's ne'er an old wife that loves a dram, The sovereign formerly bore the title of King, and his consort is styled Queen in some of the statutes. This title was, about three centuries ago, abandoned by Thomas, Earl of Derby ; and Lord of Man assumed in its room. The reason which he gave for so doing was, that he thought it an empty title, since the country could no longer maintain itself independent of other nations; and that he deemed it more honourable to be a great Lord than a petty King. The preamble of the Act of re-vestment recites the grant of Henry IV. and the confirmation of it by Act of Parliament of 7th James I. regulating the entail of the island, and the succession to it. It mentions the death of Charles, Earl of Derby, in 1735; and that the property was consequently vested in James, Duke of Athol, as heir general to James, Earl of Derby, who was beheaded in 1651; that James, Duke of Athol, conveyed it to trustees in a deed of feoffment executed on the 6th of April, 1756, to make an absolute sale of it after his death, with the consent of the then Lord-proprietor his heir; the money arising therefrom to be laid out in the purchase of lands in Scotland, to be entailed in the strictest manner according to the law of that kingdom on the heirs male of his body, with remainders, designed to prefer the line of the Murrays to the line of heirs from the seventh Earl of Derby, with an ultimate remainder, not to the heir general of James, seventh Earl of Derby, but to Duke James's heirs and assigns. It says, that James, Duke of Athol, died in 1764, and that his only child, Charlotte Murray, and her husband, then Duke of Athol, became entitled to the Isle of Man according to their estates and interests under the prescribed entails.* The treaty specifies that the Duke and Duchess shall receive 70,000l. to be laid out in estates of Scotland to be entailed for ever on their heirs See Statutes at large, Vol. X. in purchase of their royalty, the revenues arising, or to be raised from the custom-duties and some other perquisites; themselves retaining the manerial rights, with many other advantages and emoluments. This sum was consequently paid into the Bank of England in the names of the Duke and Duchess of Athol, Sir Charles Frederick, and Edmond Hoskins, to be by them appropriated to the purpose above specified. Respecting the perquisites and emoluments, some misunderstanding had arisen; the English government having claimed more than the Duke by this treaty intended to give up; and the Duke and Duchess had the further grant of an annuity of 2,000l. upon their lives.* In the year 1781, the present Duke, son to the vender of his royalty, presented a petition to parliament, which stated, among other complaints, that many parts of the Act of the fifth year of George the Third required explanation and amendment, and that proper remedies or powers were omitted to be given by the said Act to the Duke and Duchess of Athol, their heirs or assigns, seneschals or stewards, and moors and * The date of this grant I know not, being unable to find any account of it in the statutes. bailiffs, for the obtaining of the several rights and interests, or for the exercise or enjoyment of such as were intended to be reserved: and therefore prayed that leave might be given to bring in a bill to explain and amend the said Act, made in the fifth year of the reign of his present Majesty, and to enable the said Duke and his heirs to obtain, exercise, and enjoy, certain powers and remedies.* He alleged, that the revenues arising to his family were not fairly collected prior to the revestment, many frauds being then practised; and consequently that the annual revenue to which the purchase money was proportioned was much too small, the frauds having been since prevented by the regulations of the English government: that his father had the power of increasing the duties with the consent of the council and the Keys, and that such consent, to any reasonable degree, would not have been withheld; that some rights, not intended to be vested in the crown, had been so vested, such as herringcustom, salmon-fisheries, and treasure-trove. A petition, being a memorial of John Cas * Vide Journal of the House of Commons, Vol. 38. nahan, of the House of Keys, and agent for that body, was laid before parliament against the passing of the bill. It stated that the proposed bill contained many provisions against the present constitution, and injurious to the inhabitants of the island, Counsel having been heard on both sides, the bill, somewhat amended, passed the House, under the following title: "An Act to explain and amend an act of the fifth year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, "An Act, &c"-; and to ascertain and establish the jurisdiction of the manerial courts of the most noble John Duke of Athol, in the said island; and to enable the said Duke and his heirs to exercise and enjoy certain rights, powers, and remedies, therein contained." Counsel was again heard in the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor was against the bill. He said that what the public purchased of the late Duke of Athol seemed to him of very little importance, no more, in his apprehension, than certain rights and privileges, incident to the proprietor for the time being, as first magistrate and Lord of the soil; and which his Majesty's ervants in the year 1765, very wisely deemed |