On the reading of the report,

Mr. Curwen observed that the late Duke of Athol, on selling the island, had no right to sell the revenues. They belonged to the people, and were inalienable, and therefore he could not in justice claim any compensation, on the ground that the revenues had increased. The late Duke had, in fact, nothing to sell but his estate on the island, accompanied by a barren sceptre.

Sir W. Burroughs endeavoured to prove by the authority of Lord Coke, that the Lord of the island was formerly an independent monarch, and that the House of Keys was not a legislature, but only a judicial body.* a judicial body.* The customs' revenue since 1798 had increased from £6,000. to £16,000. a year.

Mr. Bond opposed the bill on the principles laid down by Coke and Blackstone, that the authority of parliament was paramount, and that it had an unquestionable right to legislate for the Isle of Man. There were no facts to shew that the Duke of Athol was independent of this controul. The memorial stated that the revenues

* Previously to the year 1430, the Lord of Man had certainly exercised very arbitrary power, but at that æra the constitution of the government was rendered much less monarchical.

This

of 1802 were greater than those of 1765. circumstance had nothing at all to do with the present business.

Lord Glenbervie maintained that the opinion of Lord Coke was unfounded.

Lord Temple thought it his duty to resist a transaction which had the appearance of a job. Mr. Pitt supported the petition on the justness of the claims.

Mr. Sheridan supported the bill in opposition to most of his friends.

Division for receiving the report 114

On the taking of the report into consideration, Mr. Rose observed that the late Duke had been frightened into the bargain, that Lord Mansfield had told him that if he did not accept what was offered he would lose all.* Parliament

*In order to give to the reader as comprehensive a view of the subject as possible, I here subjoin an extract of the Act of 5 George III. which refers to a letter, addressed to the Lords of the Treasury, written in the names of the Duke and the Duchess of Athol, and dated Feb. 27, 1765. "They did declare that they were ready, if it should be deemed necessary for the public service, to part with all their rights held under the several grants of the Isle of Man; but

had certainly no right to legislate for the island. Lord Coke had never asserted that parliament had a right to legislate for the island, but only apprehended that the reservation of their landed revenue, together with the patronage of the bishoprick, and other ecclesiastical benefices of the island, could not interfere with the interest of the public; and notwithstanding the difficulty of proposing a proper compensation (which might expose them to the imputation of making an unreasonable demand on the one hand, and of not doing sufficient justice to their family on the other), yet as the circumstances of the case had made it necessary, they did therefore hope that neither his Majesty, nor the parliament, would think the clear sum of 70,000l. too great a price to be paid them in full compensation for the absolute surrender of the Isle, Castle, and Peel of Man, and all rights, jurisdictions, and interests, in and over the said island, and all its dependencies, holden under the several grants thereof, or any other title whatsoever, reserving only their landed property, and all their rights in and over the soil as Lord of the Manor, with all courts-baron, rents, services, and other incidents to such courts belonging, their wastes, commons, and other lands, inland waters, fisheries, and mills, and all mines, minerals, and quarries, according to their present rights therein, felons' goods, deodands, waifs, estrays, and wrecks at sea, together with the patropage of the bishoprick, and of the other ecclesiastical bene fices of the island to which they were entitled." Vide Statutes at large, 4to Vol. x.

It appears to me, for reasons given in a former part of this work, that the revenues of the late Duke, with the exception of manerial rights, and possibly of 1,000l. or at most of 2,000l. besides, arose from the smuggling trade. Postlethwayte says, that "the revenues of the Duke of Athol arise for the most part from small duties, and customs paid upon

that some special provisions might extend to it.* There was now a surplus revenue from the island, and from this the compensation was proposed to be paid.

Sir William Young said that the ancestor of the Duke of Athol (the last Earl of Derby) had farmed the revenue of the island to a merchant at Liverpool for 1,000l. a year, and the Duke had no right to claim additional compensation in

goods entered, and afterwards smuggled upon the coasts of England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland." See his Commercial Dictionary, Article, Man.

On the 17th January, 1765, a bill was ordered to be brought into parliament "to prevent the mischiefs arising to the revenue and commerce of Great Britain and Ireland, from the illicit and clandestine trade to and from the Isle of Man." The Duke and Duchess petitioned against the passing of this bill; and expressed a fear that their ancient privileges, and their revenues, were about to be wrested from them. While it was pending, their treaty with the treasury was concluded. They saw that the English government were taking every means in their power to check this illicit traffic, and justly dreaded a loss of the greater part of their revenue. Vide Journals of the Commons, Vol. 30, p. 30 and 139.

* "The Isle of Man is not governed by our laws, neither doth any act of parliament extend to it, unless it be particularly named therein, and then an act of parliament is binding there." Vide Blackstone, Vol. I. p. 106, who gives

Coke as his authority, 4 Inst. 284.

consequence of the increase of that revenue under the fostering care of the British Legislature, and from the influence of the British laws. The nett revenue of the island had been reckoned at much too high a sum: for the bounty on herrings amounted to 4,000l. a year, and this should be first deducted.*

Mr. Windham wished to record his sentiments upon the subject. The whole transaction appeared to him what is vulgarly called a job. There was no compulsion upon the Duke of Athol to assent to the terms he agreed to in 1765. It was said that if the Duke had not agreed to the terms proposed he would have lost all. He might have lost the greater part of his revenue; but he would have retained his estate, his regalities, his honours; and these alone

• This statement appears very erroneous, and drawn from I know not what document. Herrings were entitled to a bounty, according to circumstances, of 1s., 1s. 9d., or 2s. 8d. per barrel. The commissioners appointed in 1792, report the bounty for the years 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, to be $9067. 18s. 3d. making an average of 976l. 14s. 7d. per annum. The herring trade since that time is allowed rather to have fallen off than increased. The same report states the expences of the island, including bounties, for the year 1790 to be 32721. 2s. 2d.