ISLE 
lug- found -inconvenient for the puitpefes of public juftice, 
and injurious to the revenue, (fince it afforded a very un¬ 
fair proteftion to debtors, outlaws, and fmugglers,) it be¬ 
came the wifh of the Britifh government that the fove- 
reignty of the ifland fliould be re-vefted in the king. 
An aft confequently paffed the legiflature in 1726, au¬ 
thoring the earl of Derby to fell his royalty and revenue. 
Although many propolals were made to him and his fuc- 
ceffor, they were always unwilling to complete the fale; 
and the objeft of government remained incomplete till 
John duke of Athol and liis duchefs fucceeded to the roy¬ 
alty. In the firft and laft year of their reign, and in the 
fifth of that of his prefent majefty, A.D. 1765, the fove- 
reignty was re-vefted in the king of England. The peo¬ 
ple were at firft much alarmed at the cpnlequent change 
of affairs, but experience has fince taught the induftrious 
part of them to confider it a great advantage to the coun¬ 
try; the duke however was ever afterwards much difliked 
on this account. 
The preamble of the aft of re-veftment recites the grant 
of Henry IV. and the confirmation of it by aft of parlia¬ 
ment of 7th James I. regulating the entail of the ifland, 
and the fucceffion to it. It mentions the death ol Charles 
earl of Derby in 1735 ; and that the property was confe¬ 
quently veiled 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 truftees in deed of 
feoffment, executed on the 6th of April, 1756, to make 
an abfolute fale of it after his death, with the confent of 
the then lord-proprietor his heir; the money arifing there¬ 
from to be laid out in the purchafe of lands in Scotland, 
to be entailed in the ftriftelt manner according to the-law 
of that kingdom on the heirs male of his body, with re¬ 
mainders, defigned to prefer the line of the Murrays to 
the line of heirs from the feventh earl of Derby, with an 
ultimate remainder, not to the heir general of James fe¬ 
venth earl of Derby, but to duke James’s heirs and afligns. 
It then proceeds to ftate, that James duke of Athol died 
in 1764, and that his only child, Charlotte Murray, and 
her hufband, then duke of Athol, became entitled to the 
lfie of Man according to their efiates and interefts under 
the preferibed entails. The treaty lpecifies that the duke 
and duchefs fliall receive 70,000]. to be laid out in eftates 
of Scotland to be entailed for ever on their heirs, in pur¬ 
chafe of their royalty, the revenues arifing or to be raifed 
from the cuftom-duties, and fome other perquifites; them- 
felves retaining the manerial rights, with many other ad¬ 
vantages and emoluments. This fum was confequently 
paid into the Bank of England in the names of the duke 
and duchefs of Athol, fir Charles Frederic, and Edmond 
Holkins, to be by them appropriated to the purpofe above 
fpecified. Refpefting the perquifites and emoluments, 
fome mifiunderftanding had arifen ; the Englifh government 
having claimed more than the duke by this treaty intended 
to give up ; and the duke and duchefs had the further 
grant of an annuity of 2000I. upon their lives. 
In the year 1781, the prefent duke, fon to the vender 
of his royalty, prefented a petition to parliament, which 
ftated, among other complaints, that many parts of the 
aft of the 5th of George III. required explanation and 
amendment, and that proper remedies or powers were 
omitted to be given :by the faid aft: to the duke and du¬ 
chefs of Athol, their heirs or affigns, fenefchals or How¬ 
ards, and moors and. bailiffs, for the obtaining of the fe¬ 
deral rights and interefts, or for the exercife or enjoyment 
of fucb as were intended to be referved; and therefore 
prayed that leave might be given to bring in a bill to ex¬ 
plain and amend the faid aft, made in the fifth year of 
the reign cf his prefent majefty, and to enable the faid 
duke and his heirs to obtain, exercife, and enjoy, certain 
powers and remedies. He alleged, that the revenues arif¬ 
ing to his family were not fairly collected prior to the re- 
veftment, many frauds being then praftifed ; and confe¬ 
quently, that the annual revenue to which the purchafe- 
snoncy was proportioned was much too final 1, the frauds 
having been fince prevented by the regulations of the 
Vol. XI. No. 764. 
of M A N. 4i-S 
Englifti government ; that his father had the-power of iu- 
creafing the duties with the confent cf the council; that- 
fome rights, not intended to be veiled in, the crown, had 
been fo veiled, fucli as herring-cuftom, falmon-fifherics, 
and treafure-trove. Counlel having been heard on both, 
iides, the bill, fomewhat amended, paffed the lower houfe, 
under the following title: “ An Adi to explain and amend 
an aft: of the fifth year of the reign of his prefent majefty, 
intituled an aft', &c.—and to aicertain and eftablifh the 
jurifdiftion of the manerial courts of the mod noble John 
duke of Athol, in the faid ifland ; and to enable the laid 
duke and his heirs to exercife and enjoy certain rights,, 
powers, and remedies, therein contained.” The bill was 
finally loft in the upper houfe. 
Ill the year 1790 the duke again petitioned parliament; 
and general Murray moved for leave to bring in a bill 
for appointing commiffioners to inquire into the extent- 
and value of certain rights, revenues, and poffefiions, in 
the Ille of Man. Mr. Dundas fupported the bill ; as did 
Mi 1 . Role, who faid, that the bargain of 1765 had been 
made in a hurry, that it was an unfair one, and required 
re-confideration. The bill was oppofed by Mr. Law, (the 
attorney-general, now lord Ellenborough,) who denied any 
precipitancy in the bargain, the Englifti government hav¬ 
ing had the purchafe in contemplation ever fince the reign 
of George I. He confidered 70,000!. and an annuity of 
2000I. on the lives of the duke and duchefs an ample, 
compenftuion. Mr. Curwen faid, that the allegations of 
the noble duke were utterly unfounded. If any' greater 
compenfation ought to be granted, the duchefs-dowager 
was entitled to receive it. She had been filent upon the 
fubjeft, and he believed content. He had every reafoa 
for fuppofing that the late duke was perfeftly fatisfied 
with the bargain he liad made. What had been already 
granted he maintained to be a moft ample confideration. 
If the rights of the duke had been invaded, he fliould re¬ 
fort for redrels to the laws of the ifland, and not to the 
houfe of commons. This bill alfo was thrown out. 
In the year 1805 another petition was prefented by the 
duke to parliament, which, like the former was referred to 
a committee. On the reading of the report, Mr. Curwen 
obferved that the late duke of Athol, on felling the ifland, 
had no right to fell the revenues. They belonged to the 
people, and were inalienable; and therefore he could not 
in juftice claim any compenfation, on the ground that the 
revenues had increafed. The late duke had, in fail, no¬ 
thing to fell but his eftate on the ifland, accompanied by 
a barren feeptre. 
Mr. Role obferved, that the late duke had been fright¬ 
ened into the bargain; that lord Mansfield had told him 
that if he did not accept what was offered he would loie 
all. Mr. Windham faid, the whole tranlaftion appeared 
to him what is vulgarly called a job. There was no com- 
pulfion upon the duke of Athol to affent to the terms he 
agreed to in 1765. It was faid that, if the duke had not 
agreed to the terms propofed, he would have loft all. He 
might have loft the greater part of his revenue; but lie 
would have retained his eftate, his regalities, his honours; 
and thefe alone he conceived to be faleable articles. The 
revenue of a people is public property. The houfe divided; 
for the duke’s petition, 95 ; again ft it, 385 majority, 57, 
On the further confideration of the report, Mr. Pitt 
moved that one fourth of the grofs revenues of the Ifleof 
Man be allowed to the duke and his heirs for ever, which 
being eftimated at 12,oool. would yield an income of about 
3000k per annum. This was agreed to, and the bill paftsj 
the houfe of commons on the 2d of July. 
In the houfe of lords it again met with oppofitio.n. 
Lord Ellenborough expreiled his furprife at the appeal 
of the duke, and his abfolute difapprobation of the par¬ 
liamentary proceedings. The bill contained, and was 
founded on, propofitions untrue in faft: and in law. The 
very firft was, that the former right of the duke of Athol 
in the Ille of Man was a fovereignty. It was -a lordfiiip, 
a dominion ; but no lawyer, no hiftorian, had ever named 
it a fovereignty. The privileges and the rights of the 
5 N duke 
