he conceived to be saleable articles. The reve nue of a people is public property. Mr. Sheridan suspected that from the manner in which his honourable friends opposed this claim, they had not given themselves the trouble of reading it. He thought the Duke an injured man. In a letter of the late Duke to Lord Mansfield, requesting his advice, he sent a detailed estimate of the losses at 620,000/.* Mr Wilberforce ridiculed the estimate of 620,000l. and said it would seem as if his Grace had considered the sovereignty of the Isle of Man as something nearly equivalent to the crown of Poland. "The crown of Poland, venal twice an age, To just a million stints the modest guage." The house divided: for the Duke's petition, 95 against it, 38 majority 57 On the further consideration of the report Mr. Pitt moved that one fourth of the gross revenues of the Isle of Man be allowed to the Duke and his heirs for ever, which being estimated at *It would be amusing to learn how much of this sum was put down to the account of honours. 12,000l. would yield an income of about 3,000/. per annum, Mr. Creevey complained of a great deal of canvassing by the friends of the petitioner. Mr. Sheridan, kindling at the expression, said, that if there had been canvassing on the side of the petitioner, there had been much more shameful canvassing on the opposite side. He had been canvassed by both parties, but in a very different manner. The justice of the cause had made him espouse it. He had not the least partiality for the noble Duke. After some opposition this motion passed, Noes 26 Majority 53 On the second reading of the bill were, Noes 12 Majority 38 Sir William Young previously moved an amendment, that the Duke, instead of receiving one fourth of the revenues of Man, should re Y ceive annually, out of the consolidated fund, a sum equal to one fourth, which was agreed to.* On the 2d July the bill was read a third time and passed, Mr. Curwen having, in every stage, exerted all his strength against it. Ayes 42 Noes 12 Majority 30 In the House of Lords it again met with opposition. Lord Ellenborough expressed his surprise at the appeal of the Duke, and his absolute disapprobation of the parliamentary proceedings. A moment before he is called upon to consent to that stage of the bill, in which it is his duty to oppose the principle, if he thinks it wrong, a huge folio volume is put into his hands,† so reeking from the press, that it is with danger to his health that he can hold it to read it through. The bill contained, and was founded on propositions untrue in fact and in law. The very first was, that the former right of the Duke of Athol in the Isle of Man was a sovereignty. It was a * The state of the case is in no way altered by this amend ment. + The report of the commissioners. lordship, a dominion; but no lawyer, no historian, had ever named it a sovereignty. The privileges and the rights of the Duke in the Isle of Man were held by petty serjeantry. Yet the bill three times repeats the false assertion: Like a tall bully" --- He would not finish the sentence in its own words; but every man saw the epithet that would apply to the conduct of the bill. It was falsely asserted either that the noble Duke's ancestor was compelled to alienate his rights in the Isle of Man, or that he did not receive full compensation. Lord Harrowby supported the bill. The Marquis of Buckingham repelled the attacks made against Mr. Grenville, Chancellor in 1765. He denied any precipitancy in the meas sure, the treaty having been two years in hand previously to its conclusion. Lord Sidmouth opposed the bill at great length. During his administration of 1802 the Duke presented a memorial to his Majesty, which was referred to the privy council. After con sulting the law-officers of the crown, they came to the unanimous resolution that there was no * The remainder of the line is "rears its head and lyes.” ground for conceiving the former compensation inadequate. Soon after the change of administration a similar petition was referred to the privy council, and they came to a resolution exactly the reverse of the former. Lord Mulgrave replied, that the first set of lawyers, to whom the claims had been submitted, had said only that they saw no reason to think that the compensation had been inadequate; but that the second set had positively given their opinion that it was inadequate. He much lamented that such rude and boisterous language had been used by a noble Lord early in the debate. Lord Ellenborough asserted that his language was neither rude nor boisterous, but only such as the subject required. The Lord Chancellor could find nothing in the evidence to show that the compensation granted in 1765 was inadequate in 1805. Lord Hawkesbury said that he came to the consideration of the claim with an unbiassed and impartial mind, and, from the evidence before the House, was firmly of opinion that the bargain had been forced upon the Duke and Duchess of Athol, and that the compensation. had not been adequate. |
