HC Deb 23 May 1805 vol 5 cc53-6
Colonel Stanley

reported from the committee, whom the petition of John duke of Atholl is referred; and to whom the report of the commissioners of enquiry relative to the Isle of Man, made in the year 1792, and all accounts respecting the revenues of the said isle, which have been presented, to the house in this session,of parliament are also referred; and who were instructed to take into their consideration all such parts,of the said report as relate to the collection and management of the revenue of the said isle, and likewise to examine into the receipts of the revenue of the same isle, and the disbursements thereout, from the 5th January 1791 to the 5th of January 1805; and into all balances in the hands of the collectors or receivers of the revenues of the same isle, and to report their observations upon all such subjects to the house; and to whom the several accounts and papers relating to the Isle Man, which have been presented to the house since the 26th day of March last and also, the account of the amount duties received within the ports of the Isle of Man upon imports sand export, between the 5th January 1798 and the 5th January 1804, which was presented to the house upon the 10th day of April, in the last session of parliament, are also referred; and who were empowered to report their proceedings, together with their observations and opinion thereupon, from time to time, to the house; that the committee had examined the matters to them referred, and had come to several resolutions thereupon, which they had directed him to report to the house; and he read the. report in his place, and afterwards delivered it in at the table, where the same was read; and the resolutions of the committee are as followeth,viz "Resolved, That the committee, having considered the documents and evidence which have been laid before them, are of opinion, that the petitioner has fully established the allegations of his petition. Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that it would be proper to recommend to the house, that parliament should grant such farther compensation as shall seem adequate for the benefit of the petitioner and the other heirs-general of the seventh earl of Derby, according to the provisions of the act of the 7th of king James the First, and that such compensation should be charged on the revenue of the Isle of Man."

Mr. Curwen

did not wish at this moment to oppose the reception of this report, though he totally objected to its contents; and his wish was, that the subject should undergo a full discussion in a committee of the whole house, and that the whole of the merits of the noble duke's claims should be fairly and fully investigated. He hoped the house, in its attention to the claims of the Duke of Atholl, would not be unmindful to the complaints of a numerous and loyal body of his majesty's subjects, though not represented in that house: and as it was the peculiar privilege of parliament as well to watch over the modes of raising money from the pockets of his majesty's subjects, as to guard with vigilance its proper disbursement, so he trusted in this case the inhabitants of the Isle of Man would not be exposed to imposts, which it was not just they should pay, at the mere fiat of the noble duke, who claimed the privilege of taxing them just as he pleased, of his own mere will and caprice; nor sutler the public money to be lavished in the payment of demands, not founded on any just or reasonable title. At least he trusted, that before the house would assent to the report now offered, and founded on such a various multiplicity of items and documents, they would fully and fairly investigate the whole. This was not the first time those claims of the noble duke were brought forward; they had been repeatedly urged, and every time in a new and different shape from the former. They came now forward upon a footing totally different from that on which they had been last submitted to his majesty's privy council, who, after four years deliberation, and after referring the subject for the judicial consideration of his majesty's attorney and solicitor general, and receiving the elaborate report of those learned gentlemen upon the subject, decided that the duke of Atholl had no right to the claims he preferred. The noble duke claimed, under the appointment of James I. a power which, he thanked God, no king of this country ever enjoyed, a power of taxing the people at his mere will. This power the house of Keys, in the Isle of Man, who are the proper representatives of the inhabitants, denied; and this was the question now at issue. It was somewhat extraordinary that though those claims had been rejected, after four years deliberation, by the privy council, when a noble lord, now in another house (lord Sidmouth), was at the head of administration—an administration which he had supported, which he should ever respect, and which he considered as a much more vigorous one than that by which it was succeeded; yet by the privy council which succeeded, after a deliberation of scarcely as many weeks, with the facility of turning to all the documents, and to the attorney and solicitor general, for their evidence on the case, they decreed that the claims were founded; and this decision was confirmed by a committee of this house, which had only sat a few days. In that committee, of which he was a member, he opposed the claims; but finding that he stood alone, and was unable to prevail, be ceased to attend it. What he now wished was, full investigation before the whole house, and that the whole of the report and evidence be printed.

Lord Glenbervie

said, that the reason why the ultimate decision of the privy council was in opposition to the first, was, that a new memorial, stating new facts, and founded upon new evidence, had been presented by the noble duke, to whom it was a part of the justice due that the decision should not be delayed, which might be the case, if, at this late period of the session, the whole of those voluminous documents were to be printed, which, he contended, were in print already; and that the hon. gentleman had derived his information from a printed copy. He concluded by moving, "that the report be taken into consideration on Tuesday next."—This was opposed by Mr. Curwen, Mr. Creevey, Mr. Hurst, Mr. Windham, and Mr. Johnstone. They expressed their wish, that the evidence on which the report was founded should be printed, and stated the impossibility of doing that in due time. It was indecent to hurry through the house in a few days, what had occupied the attention of the privy council for several years. In the administration of lord Sidmouth, a negative had been put on the claims of the duke of Atholl, and why should that be reversed? The attorney and solicitor general had declared their opinions against him. If new matter had been brought forward since that time, the case ought to be again referred to the consideration of the law officers, and should they report favourably to the noble duke, there could then be no objection to the admission of his demand.—An amendment was moved by Mr. Johnstone, that the report should be taken into consideration on Wednesday, the 5th of June. On the other hand, Col. Stanley, lord Glenbervie, sir W. Burrowes, Mr. Rose, Mr. I. H. Browne, and the;Chancellor of the Exchequer, contended that the evidence on which the committee proceeded not being oral, but drawn chiefly from the able and elaborate report of the commissioners in 1792, already in the possession of the house, it would create useles delay to reprint it. Since the opinion given by the law officers, additional and important matter had been produced. If the house relied implicitly on the opinion given by those officers, that would have been an argument against referring the subject to a committee at all. They had, however, thought proper to refer it to a committee, the decision of that committee was now before them, and it was highly expedient to act upon it as speedily as possible. If, however, the delay of a day or two was considered as desirable, they had no objection to postpone the consideration of the report to Thursday.—The house then divided on Mr. Johnstone's amendment; for it, 58; against it, 119; majority, 61. The report was then ordered to be taken into consideration on Tuesday.