§ On the question for the third reading of the bill for granting additional compensation to the Atholl family,
§ The Marquis of Buckingham rose to oppose it. He went into a variety of argument and detail, proving that there was no such thing as sovereignty belonging to the lords of Man; but that all they possessed was merely the dominium, which was only lordship, and had been so translated into our acts of parliament. The title had never been more than that of lord or lady of the Isle of Man. The ecclesiastical establishment of the isle, so far from acknowledging the lord of Man, was entirely under the controul of English acts of parliament. The monasteries were suppressed, and the church property that was seized was taken for the use, not of the lord of the isle, but by and for the king of England, under the act of parliament of Henry the eighth. There were, the noble marquis contended, many instances of similar jurisdictions with that of the Isle of Man, such as the counties palatine, &c. in this country. He then referred to Taylor's elements of the civil law, who, in investigating matters of this nature, observed, that private persons had frequently territories allotted to them, reserving always the public right: the imperium belonging to the king, and the dominium constituted the lordship; and this was held by a sergeantry, or petty sergeantry of various kinds. Whatever their lordships might choose to do in this business, they ought to drop the mention of the word sovereignty, since in point of fact it never had existed.—If there were any ground laid for making this claim, it was only on the increase of the revenues. In the whole of the original transaction of the compact, there was an anxious wish on the part of government to do justice. If the present case was an appeal to liberality, there was also the policy of the case to be considered; and the noble viscount (Sidmouth) whom he did not now see in his place, had last night detailed various reasons against opening or disturbing the compact. The negotiation was not precipitate. It was begun in the year 1761 with Mr. Pelham, who entrusted it to Mr. Grenville, and a great variety of documents took up the attention of ministers for a long time. Could the house shut their eyes upon ail the opinions of great and eminent law officers given from that time to this, the opinion of lord Rosslyn, sir James Manners, Mr. Wallace, 818 and other gentlemen, as well as those or the law officers of the present day? The original compact had been termed matter of history. He wished that forty years hence the present transaction would merit as favourable a recollection as that which took place forty years ago. He considered it to be impossible to estimate the compensation according to any standard or criterion whatever. The bill stated loosely one-fourth of the revenue, which might amount to a very great sum.—He saw plainly, that under the operation of this question the islanders had suffered greatly. They have had, however, the advantage of parliamentary protection, and he trusted they felt grateful. We had gained, indeed, the loyalty and affection of thirty thousand subjects; and they must see how we have excited their energy. Having stated these things, he should allude to a clause in the bill, partly, indeed, on a personal account.—The money was to be paid at the Exchequer, and the public officer was to be rendered responsible and exposed to the law for any delay in the payment. Cases might occur to justify such a delay. He then instanced the case of the heir of Penderell, now before the court of Chancery, and stated difficulties that might occur in the case of the heirs general of the earl of Derby. Before he sat down, he begged to repeat, that, in what he had stated, he had only delivered his conscientious opinion on this subject, and in nothing he had said, had he intended any kind of disrespect to the noble family who were the present claimants.
§ The Earl of Westmoreland replied to the arguments that had been urged against the bill; he considered that the transfer was altogether compulsory on the part of the Atholl family, as appeared by the evidence of sir Fletcher Norton, his Majesty's attorney general, who stated in the house of commons as a witness, that he had heard the late duke express great sorrow upon the occasion, and say that he would not take double what was offered him as a compensation, it he was not afraid of the consequences of the bill, which was then about to be brought forward, respecting the customs of the Island. This appeared to him sufficient proof that the sale was a compulsory one against the late duke of Atholl, and that if the terms were not fair at that time, the present duke had a right to compensation. The customs of the Isle of Man were no less than 7,000l. per annum when the act was passed; and as the act itself referred to a schedule of those customs, he could not but think they formed the principal consideration for which the sum of 819 70,000l. was given. If so, it was evident that Such a sum was grossly inadequate.—There was another circumstance which, in his opinion, vitiated the whole transaction, and he wished that the learned lords would express their opinion of it in point of law.—When a tenant for life (and the dutchessdowager was no more) in the sale of property entailed, accepts of a private douceur for himself, he always conceived that that circumstance would overturn the bargain, either in a court of law or equity. In this instance, the late duke and the dutchess-dowager accepted of a douceur of 2,000l; per ann. pension to themselves. This circumstance alone would, he believed, according to the construction of law, impeach the fairness of the transaction.
§ The Lord Chancellor was inclined to consider, that by the rules of equity in common cases, this pension of 2,000l. per ann. ought to be applied to the property so entailed, and ought not to have been taken for the separate use of those who were but tenants for life. He was one of those to whom the claim had been originally referred; and he had coincided in the general opinion of the crown lawyers, that there was no reason for considering the compensation inadequate, As to the sovereignty that is now insisted upon, he thought there had been no pretence for claiming it, and as to the custom duties of the island, it was clear they were granted for the purpose of paying the public expences of the island. Upon the whole he considered, that it would be a most alarming precedent now to open again a transaction that had been closed so long as 40 years ago.
§ The Earl of Suffolk opposed the bill as opening a door to numerous claims of the same description.
§ The Earl of Carlisle supported the bill, and considered the claims of sovereignty as very immaterial, provided the rights referred to were admitted.
§ The Duke of Norfolk denied that the allegations in the preamble of the bill were made good, and therefore moved that the bill be recommitted. On this question their lordships divided, Contents 7—Non-contents 2[...]. Majority against the motion 18. Several verbal amendments were then proposed by the marquis of Buckingham, which were rejected. Another division took place on a verbal amendment proposed by his royal highness the duke of Clarence, which was lost by a majority of 25 to 5. The bill was then read a third time, and passed, after a division of 24 against 5.
§ The following Protest against the bill was 820 entered upon the journals Of their lordship's house.
§ Dissentient: First, "Because the bill in question appears to be grounded on the following recitals, which have not been supported by evidence. The preamble recites that the Isle of Man was granted in Sovereignty by King Henry the 4th, and that the Sovereign rights continued until the 5th year of his present Majesty; and it further recites, that the act of the 12th of George the First, chap. 28, provided for the purchase of these Sovereign rights. But this grant to sir John Stanley, and the said act, do not in point of fact convey, or confirm, or provide for the purchase of Sovereign rights in the Isle of Man; and it was not denied in the course of debate that the legislature of England had uninterruptedly legislated for internal purposes within the said Island. The preamble further recites, that by a certain deed of restriction duly executed by Charlotte, duchess dowager of Atholl, John, duke of Atholl, became entitled to the rights reserved to his family in the Isle of Man, and hath ever since continued to enjoy the same.—But this deed when produced in evidence, purports only to intend to convey—'the rents, profits, and duties of every kind payable now forth and from the Isle of Man; and does not convey any of the other rights reserved: and it appears from evidence that the duchess dowager of Atholl was lady of the Island at the time of passing the act of the 5th year of his present majesty, and has continued to exercise part of the rights reserved to her by that law ever since the act of Restriction, 1774.—The preamble further recites, that there were circumstances attending the resignation of these rights, which make it just and reasonable that a further compensation should be given, and that the duties of customs of the Island belonged to the family of the duke of Atholl, and that a compensation should be given for them to be regulated by their produce. But of these circumstances no evidence was given, nor was it proved to us that the duties in question did so belong, nor was any reason whatsoever urged in the debate to induce us to think that the compensation (if any was to be made) should be regulated by their produce.—Secondly, because the reports made at various times down to the present moment, by the law officers of the crown, on the subject of the claim for further compensation in this matter, were sanctioned and confirmed in the debate by the first legal authorities; and did satisfy us that we are well grounded in our opinion, that sufficient grounds have not been produced in proof that the compensation given 821 by the act of the 5th year of his present majesty, chap. 26, was inadequate.—Thirdly, because the vague and loose manner in which the evidence has been conducted of the nature and extent of the supposed injury, or of the proposed compensation, or of the claim of the duke of Atholl, to be considered as the party to whom that compensation should be granted, forms an additional ground for the jealousy which we entertain on the danger of establishing this precedent for opening for re consideration, and at a remote period, contracts between the public and individuals. Fourthly.—Because the house having thought proper to reject an amendment proposed in the last clause for the purpose of supplying words evidently omitted by mistake; the act as it now stands enacts a very questionable process, and imposes severe penalties on "the officers of the receipt of his majety's exchequer, who shall refuse or neglect to pay the said annuity, or yearly rent, or sum, or any part thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of this act, or to do any act necessary to enable the said John duke of. Atholl, and, the heirs general of the 7th earl of Derby." But, inasmuch as the words proposed to be here added, viz. "to receive the same," were injected, this part of the act is absolutely unintelligible, and was admitted by every lord who spoke in the debate to be inexplicable and of no effect.
| (Signed) | Norfolk, E. M. |
| William, | |
| Nugent Buckingham, | |
| Carysfort. |