[pages 12-22 1792 Report of Commissioners of Inquiry]


IT appears by the Evidence of John Quayle, Esq. that the Salmon Fisheries of this Isle are distinguishable into the Bay Fisheries upon the Coast, and the Inland Fisheries; that the latter are customary Estates of Inheritance, for which the Tenants pay a specific Quit Rent to the Lord , and that the Bay Fisheries, prior to the Year 1765, were let by the Ancestors of the Duke of Atholl, as Lords Proprietors of the Island.

From the Testimony of Mr. Senhouse Wilson, Deputy Receiver General of the Island, we learn, that since the Revestment, the different Bay Fisheries round the Island have been let, by Order of the Lords of the Treasury, from Time to Time, by Lease, for the Term of seven Years. Upon inspection we found that the Covenants in the present Lease regard the Protection of the Fisheries merely, and contain no Restriction respecting illicit Practices The Deputy Receiver-General also informed us, that he does not know any Instance where the letting of these Bay Fisheries by him has been the Means of detecting or preventing Frauds. upon the Revenue.

We are therefore of Opinion, that the Salmon Fisheries, as at present held, are not necessarily vested in the Crown for the, Purpose of preventing illicit Practices.


THE Castle of Peele is situated on a small Island, which is stated to contain between four and five Acres, and is separated from the main Land and Town of Peele by a narrow Channel of the Sea. The Cattle of Peele was one of the Lord’s Garrisons ; it is expressly named in the original Grant of King Henry the Fourth to the Stanley Family, and is frequently mentioned in e Acts of Tynwald. The Cathedral Church of the Diocese, lately fallen into a. State of Dilapidation, stands on this Island.. Since the Revestment, more than one Bishop has been installed in the Choir, which was the last Part of the Edifice preserved from Decay. The Inhabitants of the Town of Peele claim a Right of Interment, and many have been buried within the Walls of the Cathedral. The Ecclesiastical Prison is a subterraneous Vault under the Cathedral, but has not been used for many Years

Since the Year 1765, the Officers of the Crown have taken Possession of this Island, which has been held as a Perquisite by the Governor. It is at present, and has for some time past been occupied by the High Bailiff of Peele, who uses it as a Sheep Walk, and has annually paid a . Lamb, or some such small Consideration, to the Governor by Way of Acknowledgment. .

From the Evidence of Mr. Robert Farrant, High Bailiff of Peek, it appears, that. when he first took Possession of the Castle, about six or seven Years since, he observed two or three Breaches in the North West Part of . the Wall, which he apprehended might be convenient for the Purpose of landing and concealing smuggled Goods ; that he has since, at his own Expence, repaired those Breaches, and does not apprehend that any smuggled Goods have been concealed within the Castle since those Repairs have been made.

Alexander Shaw, Esq. Lieutenant-Governor of the Isand, .testifies, that he cannot conceive that the Possession of the Isle and Castle of Peele by Government can in any way contribute to the Prevention or Detection of illicit Practices.

Mr. George Savage, Water Bailiff and Collector of the Customs, does not believe that the Possession of the Isle and Castle of Peele has by any Means contributed to the Detection or Prevention of illicit Practices.

According to this Evidence it appears, that the Isle and Castle of Peele is not necessarily vested in the Crown, for the Purpose of preventing illicit Practices.


ON this Article John Quayle, Esq. and Mr. George Savage, were examined ; the former of whom proved, that prior to the Revesting Act, the Right of Treasure Trove was in the Anceftors of His Grace of Atholl, but that since this Act it has been claimed and possessed by. the Crown ; and referred to an Order of the Court of Exchequer in the Island of the Year 1786, whereby a Treasure Trove, consisting of Two Hundred and Thirty three Pieces, and Four broken Pieces, of Silver Coin, found by certain Persons ‘in the Parish of Lonan, was, upon an Information filed by the Attorney General, adjudged by the said Court to belong to his Majesty.

Upon a former Occasion, but subsequent to the Year 1765, a Treasure Trove, consisting of ancient Coins, was demanded from the ‘Duke’s Seneschal by the Receiver General.

George Savage testifies, he does not know of any Instance where the Possession of Treasure Trove by the Crown has, been the Means of detecting or preventing illicit Practices.

We are of Opinion that this Right is not necessarily vested in the Crown for the Purpose of preventing illicit Practices.

Having thus given the Evidence produced respecting the Rights alleged to be unnecessarily vested in .the Crown for the Purpose of preventing illicit Practices, and the Opinions we have formed thereon, we think it proper here to mention, that when we were proceeding to enter on the Difcuffion of the Duke’s Third Allegation, the Attorney General stated, that he conceived, that whatever might be the Result of the Inquiries in which we were then employed, concerning the Rights of the Crown, they could not, in his opinion, be affected thereby, as he conceived that they were already established ; and that on that Account, as well as the very infirm State of his Health, he begged that his farther Attendance might be dispensed with , but that he would deliver in his Sentiments in Writing respecting these Rights, and give every farther Information in his Power in the Prosecution of our other Inquiries.

From this Time the Attorney General declined giving any farther Attendance at our Meetings ; but before we quitted the Island, we requested his Opinion how far the Herring Custom, Bay Fisheries, the Isle and Castle of Peel; Treasure Trove, and Wrecks of the Sea, were necessarily vested in the Crown for the Purpose of preventing illicit Practices.

Since out Return from thence, we have received his Opinion on the Rights above mentioned, which has been submitted to the Inspection of the Duke of Atholl, and, together with the Duke’s Remarks thereon, is subjoined in the Appendix.

The Refult of the Attorney General’s Opinion is, That he cannot take upon himself to say, that the Rights specified are absolutely necessary to be possessed by His Majesty, in order to the Suppression of Smuggling ; but as far as he can judge, he does conceive the PoIssesson of each of them by the Crown, excepting perhaps Treasure Trove, is a real and beneficial Check upon such Practices. The trifling Privilege of Treasure Trove might, he believes, be resigned without Mischief ; but all the rest would, if belonging to any other than the Sovereign, be liable to be made, in a greater or less Degree, the Means of defrauding the Revenue

After paying due Attention to the Paper thus transmitted, we have not been induced to form any other Opinion than that we have before given respecting the Herring Custom, the Salmon Fisheries, the Isle and Castle of Peele, and Treasure Trove.

It may be necessary to remark, that the Attorney General’s Opinion extends in like Manner to those Descriptions of Wreck called Flotsam, Jetsam, and Ligan ; but it will presently appear, that the Question which arises on the Duke of Atholl’s Statement, is not, whether Wrecks of the Sea be necessarily vested in the Crown for the Purpose of preventing illicit Practices , but whether they are not reserved to His Grace by the Revesting Act, though left, as he contends, in a mutilated and unprotected Condition , to which Question this Opinion is not applicable.

The Duke next proceeded to the last Branch of the Third Allegation, namely, That other Rights meant to be retained have, by the Operation of the Act of 1765, been rendered nugatory, by being left in a mutilated and unprotected Condition ; the Protections which they enjoyed under the former Government of the Island having been destroyed, and no new or adequate Protection substituted in. their Room."

In Explanation of this Article, the Duke delivered in the following Papers:

[Appendix (A.) No 45]

(No 2)


WRECKS are mentioned in the former Grants of the Isle of Mann to my Ancestors under the Title of Wrecks of the Sea. Previous to 1765, every Denomination of Wreck was enjoyed. Wrecks of the Sea were reserved by the Revesting Act to as 1~ full Ufes and Extent as if that Revesting Act had never been made.,

Wrecks of the Sea, since the Revestment, have been distinguished by the Crown Officers under the Denominations of Flotsam, Jetsam, and Ligan. Flotsam and Ligan have been taken possession of by the Crown Officers, and even in some Instances, Jetsam.


 [No 46]

(N° 3.)


I mean to prove what these Services were : That previous to 1765 they were received ; that they were expressly reserved to my Family at the Time of the Revestment of the Island ; and that they have not since been made effectual, owing to the Disputes which arose in consequence of the Revesting Act, as to the Title to exact those Services."


I mean to prove the Lord’s Right to Game from the Acts’ in the Statute Book, Page 353, an attested Copy of which is produced ; and also an authenticated Copy of the Proceedings in a Prosecution against James Banks for killing Game in the Year 1757 wherein the Fact being proved, he was fined in Three Pounds; with his Appeal to the Governor from such Sentence, and the Judgment refusing that Appeal


The Value of these, which consist of above Twenty Thousand Acres, has been extremely injured by the Abolition of the Grand Inquest, by an Act of Tynwald passed without my Knowledge or Consent. Presentments of Encroachments on these Lands, cutting of Turf, burning of Heath, &c &c. lay with the Grand Inquest, and have been practised to a shameful Degree since 1765, and more particularly since 1777.


[Appendix (A.) No 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54. 55, 56, 57] 


UNDER this Article the Duke delivered in Nine Accounts of Wrecks, (annexed in the Appendix.) John Quayle, Esq. and Mr. Senhouse Wilson were the only Persons examined. By the Testimony of the former, it appears that previously to the Revestment, Wreck of every Denomination belonged to His Grace’s Family, without Distinction, as the Lord Proprietor was possessed of all and every of them ; but that since the Year 1765, Distinctions with regard to the different Denominations of Wreck began to. be made in the Island ; and he has known many Instances since that Period where Wrecks of Flotsam and Ligan have been possessed by the Crown, and even those thrown on Shore, and lying on dry Ground, to a considerable Amount.

M Senhousë Wilson confirms this Account by saying, that since the Year 1765, the Water Bailiff has taken Possession of Flotsam, Jetsam, and Ligan, on the Part of the Crown.

[No 58, 59, 60]

On the other Hand a Copy of Proceedings was produced on the Part of the Keys, in a certain Cause in which the Duke contested the Possession of a Wreck with one of the King’s Officers, whereby it appeared, that after the Decision of the Court against his Claim, he entered an Appeal from that Determination to the King in Council ; but the appeal was not prosecuted, on account, as we understood, of a Claim Preferred by the Proprietors within, the Time limited by Law.

By the Revesting Act, " Wrecks of the Sea" are reserved to the Duke of Atholl. It seems to be settled, that by a Grant of Wreck of the Sea, Articles coming under the Description of Jetsam, Flotsam, and Ligan, will not pass. The Officers of the Crown, acting upon this Distinction, contend, that although Wrecks of every Denomination was possessed by the Lord Proprietor previous to the Year 1765, yet they were so possessed as constituting Part of the Royalties and Regalities vested in His Grace’s Ancestors by the Grants recited in the Revesting Act ; but that as Royalties and Regalities in general are now transferred to the Crown, His Grace can be entitled to none of them without special Reservation. That the Term Wrecks of the Sea, therein used, is to be taken in its ordinary legal Acceptation, and cannot be extended to the Rights of Jetsam, Flotsam, and Ligan, which never pass, except under a Grant of Royalties and Regalities, or when they are specifically mentioned.

This Construction of the Words of the Act differs materially from the Sense in which it is understood by His Grace, as appears by the Paper above recited, wherein he alleges, that Wrecks of the Sea were referred by the Revesting Act to as full Uses and Extents as if that Act had never been made.

We do not conceive that we are called upon to give an Opinion on this Point of Construction ; but if Wrecks of the Sea are reserved by the Revesting Act to the Extent stated by the Duke, and if such , Right were anyway invaded by the Officers of the Crown, we are of Opinion, that His Grace might obtain .Redress by resorting to the Courts of Justice in the Island, or by appealing to the Courts of Ultimate Jurisdiction, and therefore we do not see how this Right can be laid to be left in a mutilated and unprotected Condition


By these Terms, we underhand the Duke to allude to certain Rights, recognized by Acts of Tynwald, and declared to belong to the Lord Proprietor, under the Denomination of Carriage Services In order to obtain Information on this Article, it will be necessary to inquire into the Origin, Nature, and Appropriation of Carriage Services, of which the most authentic Account will be supplied by the Records of the Island, which expressly refer to these Particulars. . The Preamble of the Act of Tynwald of 1645 explains the Nature and Purposes of these Services in the following Terms -

" Whereas by the ancient Laws of this Island the Tenants and Inhabitants thereof are accustomed, and have been accustomed, to do their Duties and Services. to His Lordship and his Noble Anncestors at the building or repairing of any of His Honour's Forts or Houses in the Island, by the Service of themselves in Person, or by the Service of some sufficient and able Labourer in his or their Behalf, fit for the Work in Hand, contrary to which Course many and divers of the Farmers and Tenants of the better Sort usually fend Boys and Children to such Work, by Means whereof the Burthen lies upon the poor People, who are constrained to serve in their own Perfons, and such Works are neglected and not well performed, notwithstanding that they are for the Honour and Safety of the Country-.It is enacted, That every Farmer, Tenant, and Inhabitant, neglecting to do such Duties, or not finding some able and sufficient Labourers in his Stead, he or they shall for every Time forfeit and lose Sixpence Fine to the Lord."

[Appendix (A.) No 61]

Again,.in the Act of Settlement of 1703, it is provided, that

"the Double Rents of the Quarter Lands as they were then payable, together with all other Rents, Suits and Services, payable out of those or any. other Estates within the said island, should be reserved and payable for ever hereafter as formerly to the said James Earl of Derby, his Heirs and Assigns, or to such other Person or Persons as for the Time being should be Lord of the said Isle; and that the ancient Boons and Carriages payable by the respective Tenants should be considered at a future Tynwald Court."

Afterwards, by the next Act of Tynwald, reciting the Provision in the Act of Settlement, it is

"ordered, ordained, enacted, and declared, by the Authority of the said Court of Tynwald, that the Tenants and Inhabitants of this isle shall pay and do their Carriages to the Lord as formerly accustomed ; that is to say, four Carriages from every Quarter of Land, and one Carriage from every Cottage and Intack-Holder, within the laid Isle ; and the same to be performed either by the Labour of Horses or Service of Men as the Governor shall think fit to order, and as hath been formerly accustomed ; and that these Carriages shall be taken for the Lord's Use, as his Lordship, or the Governor for the Time being shall think fit to employ them ; and that noTenant shall be exempt from doing those Carriages but such as have been already legally accustomed to be freed thereof."

[Appendix (A.) No 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67]

The Mode of collecting these Dues, the Appropriation of the Labour, and the Application of the Payment, together with the Names of such Officers as are legally exempted therefrom, will appear from the Evidence of John Quayle, Esq., Clerk of the Rolls, Thomas Moore, Esq., Deemster of the Island, Mr. James Banks, Mr. John Kaighin, Mr. Patrick Shimin, and Mr. William Quine, Landholders, who were severally called and examined by. the Duke of Atholl, and cross-examined by the Keys.

From the Clauses recited in the Acts of Tynwald, as well as the Testimony of the several Witnesses above-named, it appears, that the Carriage Services were generally due from all Landholders of Lords' Lands, and Holders of Intacks or Cottages of the Lord. The Persons exempt by Custom were the Keys, the Captains of the Parish, and other Officers of the Militia, the Coroners, the Moars, the Lockman, the Warden of the Watch, the Horsemen, and the Overseers of the High Roads.

The Officer who summoned the Parties to Labour, or collected Payment in Lieu thereof, was the Moar, and either the one or the other was usually exacted from Year to Year. Four of the Witnesses examined to this Article have severally executed the Office of Moar. From their Evidence it appears, that the Governor for the Time being ordered the Labour to be performed where he pleased; some of the Witnesses have personally laboured in the Repairs of the Castle at Peele, and in the Repairs of the Lord's Fences, in Discharge of this Duty.

Such Persons as were not disposed to labour, paid the Sum of Two Shillings in respect of each Quarter Land, and Sixpence in respect of each inhabited Cottage. This Money Payment was annually collected by the Moars, whose Duty it also was to collect the Lord's Quit Rents, but was always kept distinct from those Rents, and carried to a separate Account.

Mr. James Banks, who was Moar of the Parish of Concan in the Year 1763, collected these Services; he kept a Tally for the Lord's Rent, but none for the Carriage Services, which were separate Payments. Patrick Shimin, who executed the like Office, testifies, that the Carriage Money which he collected was not charged against him in his Moar's Debit with the Lord, and that he paid it separately to John Quayle, Esq. for the Benefit of His Grace.

Mr. Quayle says, that for ten Years prior to the Year 1765, he was the Duke of Atholl's Comptroller, and employed in making out his Revenue Books; that during that Period no Composition for these Carriages was brought in as an Article of Revenue to the Duke's Account. He conceives, that by the Laws and Customs of the Island, these Services were applicable to the Maintenance and Repairs of the public Buildings, by which he means Garrisons, Castles, Governors' Houses, and Prisons within the Castles; he also states, he has the greatest Reason to believe that these Services were also applied to the Repair of Governor Cochrane's House, which was detached from the Castle; and alleges, that to, the best of his Recollection and Judgment, before the year 1765 the Lord of the Island bore all the Expences of all public Buildings, without any Burthen on the Inhabitants.

Some Doubt seems to have arisen, immediately after the Revestment, to whom the Payment of these Carriage Services was due. In 1766, John Quayle, Esq. was Agent to the Duke of Atholl, and was soon afterwards appointed Clerk of the Rolls by Government: He collected the Carriage Services for that Year as Agent for the then Duke, upon a Supposition that they belonged to him, as he had received no Directions from the Duke to give them up; but he was soon after ordered by the Governor to pay the Money received on Account of those Services to his Use, and he paid it accordingly. It does not appear that any Suit was at that Time, or has since been instituted for the Purpose of obtaining a judicial Determination in whom the Right of receiving these Services is vested.

For some time after the Revestment. the Carriage Services seem to have become a Perquisite to the Governor. William Quine collected the Money Payments, and was sworn to pay them to the Governor or his Order. He recollects, that since the Sale of the Island, Captain Radcliff had a Lease or Grant of the Carriage Services of the Parishes of Kirk Patrick and Kirk German from the Comptroller or Governor, and that during that Period Captain Radcliff employed them on his own Estate.

In the Year 1767 Patrick Shimin was Moar, and was informed by Mr. Quayle that Captain Radcliffe had a Right to the Carriage Service, or the Money in lieu thereof for that Year; that he summoned several Persons accordingly, for the Purpose of working on the Lands of Captain Radcliffe and Mr. Quayle, which Persons performed the Labour. In the Year 1773, the Deemster was requested by Governor Wood to receive for his Use the Money collected by the Moars for the Carriages throughout the Island; and he received and paid the same to his Order.

Soon after the Year 1773 the Payment of Carriage Services fell into Disuse; People began to refuse Payment, and after Governor Wood's Death, which happened some Time about the Year 1777, it does not appear that any Payment has been demanded. Mr. Quayle has assisted in the Civil Courts of the Island since the Year 1755, and does not recollect that any Suit has been instituted respecting them.

By an Account delivered in by the Duke of Atholl, the Number of Quarter Lands in the. Island is Six Hundred and Thirty-nine and one Half. A Quarter Land is a well-known Division peculiar to the Island, of indeterminate Extent and different Value, being worth from Ten Pounds to One Hundred Pounds per Annum. The Number of Intacks throughout the Island is estimated at Two Thousand Seven Hundred.

A Quarter Land is chargeable, as before stated, with the Payment of Two Shillings annually, and an Intack with Sixpence, in respect and lieu of Carriage Service; so that the gross Amount of the Carriage Services, if the whole were converted into a Money Payment, would form a Revenue of One Hundred and Thirty-one Pounds Nine Shillings, without any Allowance for the Exemptions before-mentioned.

Such is the Result of the Information we have been able to collect upon the Article of Carriage Services. A Question has arisen, Whether these Services were or were not vested in the Crown by the Act of 1765? The Crown Officers of the Island have contended, and the Keys still contend, that by their Origin and Appropriation they are clearly Sovereign Services, directed to public Purposes, being necessary, as expressed in the Act of Tynwald of 1645, "for the, Honour and Safety of the Isle," and therefore vested, among other~ Royalties and Regalities, unalienably ill the Crown. On the other hand it is contended by the Duke of Atholl, that they are reserved to his Family in the Excepting Clause in the Act, under the Terms "Services of Tenants, free and customary;" and His Grace has therefore stated them in his Allegation, as Rights meant to be retained.

We have been furnished, in the Course of our Inquiries, with the Copies of four several Reports of the Crown Officers, in which the Right to the Carriage Services has, among other Matters, come under their Consideration.

The first of these in Point of Time is dated March 6th 1780, and signed Al. Wedderburne and James Wallace; the second is dated 27th April 1780, and signed Wadsworth Busk, John Quayle, Thomas Moore; the third is dated 7th June 1780, and signed Al. Wedderburne, James Wallace; and each of these Reports is adverse to the Duke of Atholl's Title to the Carriage Services, under the Act of 1765. But the last Report, bearing Date 30th of April 1781, signed Ja' Wallace, J. Mansfield, certifies that it appears to them that this Service (namely, the Carriage Service) was intended by the Act to be reserved to His Grace, under the Words "Services or Works of Tenants, free and customary," and ought to be so declared.

In a Paper transmitted to us, the Attorney General, in giving his Opinion upon the Carriage Services, states, that "he cannot but regard them as indubitably included among the Regalities of the Isle, and as such, completely vested in the Crown by. the Act of 1765; nor can they, as he apprehends, be levied for any other than the public Purposes, to which, when insisted on, they have ever. been devoted, without manifest Injustice to the People."

After this Diversity of Opinion between Persons so well qualified to judge it would he Presumption in us to obtrude our Sentiments upon a collateral Matter, particularly where they are not required. The Allegation on which we are to deliver our Opinion ie, " that the Carriage Services, as a Right meant to be retained, have, by, the Operation of the Act of 1765, been, rendered nugatory, by being left in a mutilated and unprotected Condition."

By the Testimony of Thomas Moore, Esq. Deemster of the Island, and John Quayle, Esq. Clerk of the Rolls, the only Witnesses examined thereto, it appears, that the Civil Courts at present subsisting in the Island are competent to decide any. Question respecting these Carriage Services between the Duke of Atholl and the Inhabitants of the Island. If. therefore, the Right of Carriage Service is reserved to the Duke of Atholl, it does not appear to us that it is left in a mutilated and unprotected Condition.


THE exclusive Right of the Lord Proprietor to control the Sports of Hawking and Hunting is recognized in the earliest Statutes, and all Encroachments thereon are prohibited and. punished in the jealous and vindictive Spirit of the ancient Forest Laws.

By Statute bearing Date 1422, it is enacted, "If any Hawk or Hyron, Hart or Hind, be by any Manner of Person taken within the Land, of Mann, he forfeiteth every Time Three Pounds to your Lordship."

By Statute 1757,

"Also we give for Law, That whosoever goeth to the Forest, by Day or Night to kill any my Lord's Game, he ought to pay Seven Pounds for every one of them, as well young as old, and for every tame Deer Ten Pounds, and to be imprisoned at the Discretion of the Officers."

"Also we give for Law, That whosoever goeth to the Hough where the Hawks do breed, or Hyrons, likewise he forfeiteth for every of them, that is to say, if he take any of the old or young ones, or Eggs, Three Pounds a Piece for as many as he or they may be proved to have in the Court."

Offences against the Game Laws were among the Matters cognizable by a jury called the Great Inquest, and they were specially directed to present "any Manner of Person or Persons that goeth by Day or by Night with their Bows and Arrows to the King's Forest, or with their Hounds or Greyhounds, to kill the Lord's Game."

Among the more recent Statutes, an Act for the better. Defence of the Island, and more effectual Preservation of the Lord's Game enacts, that the Inhabitants shall be at Liberty to provide themselves with Arms. But that the Liberty granted by this Act may not prejudice the Lord's Game, it is provided, that "none shall hereafter presume to carry about a Gun to fowl, shoot, or destroy the Lord's Game, without the Governor's License in Writing first had for the fame, on pain of forfeiting Three Pounds." The Act further provides, that "none shall carry about their Guns to shoot Pidgeons, Partridges, or Grouse, under the Penalty of Twenty Shillings, one Half to the Lord, and the other Half to the Informer."

No Doubt has been entertained of the Lord's Right in Matters of Game prior to the Revesting Act, nor is it at all affected by that Act.

The only Witnesses examined under this Article were Mr. James Bancks, a considerable Landholder, and Thomas Moore, Esq. the Deemster. The former produced a Copy of a Record of Conviction in the Exchequer Court in the Year 1757, whereby he was fined in. the Sum of Three Pounds for having killed a Hare with his Dogs; and he also produced his original Petition of Appeal from the said Sentence to the Governor, whereby it appeared that his Petition was dismissed. The Deemster testifies, that prior to the Year 1765, destroying the Lord's Game on his Wastes and Commons was a presentable Offence by the Great Inquest, and that this was, among other Matters, given them in Charge when they Were sworn into Office; that in the Year 1777, the Great Inquest was laid aside by an Act of Tynwald of that Year; that since that Time a Bill has passed the Legislature of the Island, to revive the Great Inquest, but the Royal Assent has not yet been obtained; that the Court of Exchequer now remains competent to try Questions respecting the Destruction of Game upon the Island, and the Governor can now enforce the Payment of Fines and Forfeitures for any such Offence. From this Testimony it appears, that Redress for the Violation of the Right of Game is not so summary, and is also more expensive to obtain, than it was previous to the Abolition of the Great Inquest in the Year 1777. But while Recourse may be had to the Courts of the Island for the Punishment of any Transgression against that Right, we cannot say that it is left in an unprotected Condition.


THE Witnesses examined under this Article were Thomas Moore, Esq. Deemster, and Robert Heywood, Esq. Member of the House of Keys. By the Evidence of the latter it appears, that since the Abolition of the Great Inquest, the Wastes and Commons of the Island have suffered considerable Damage by the letting on Fire of the dry Ling, which he has seen burning for the Extent of several Miles, and by the improper Mode of cutting Turf; that it was the Duty of the Great Inquest to present Encroachments upon the Lord's Wastes and Commons; that they were charged twice a Year, and made Presentments either ex officio, or as often as they were applied to for that Purpose. The Deemster confirms this Account of the Duties of the Great Inquest; and further adds, that upon the Return of the Great Inquest, that any Inclosure upon the Lord's Commons was an Incroachment, the Deemster had the Power of ordering the Fence to be thrown down and the Common restored. He believes, that there may now be a Mode of Redress for the Duke by Action at Law, for any Nuisances or Incroachments upon the Lord's Wastes; and that he should have the same Power, upon a Verdict given by a jury in such Action for an Incroachment. He further says, that this Mode of Redress would not be so easy or expeditious, and would be more expensive than that by Presentment; that by the Statute 1777, all Matters then before cognizable by the Grand Inquest and Long Juries, are to be tried and determined at Common Law.

Upon this Article we are of Opinion, That although the Protection afforded by the Courts of Common Law to the Duke of Atholl's Rights respecting Unappropriated, Lands, is neither so easy or expeditious, and is more chargeable than that formerly afforded by the Great Inquest, yet whilst the Courts of Law are open for the Redress of any Violation of those Rights, we cannot say they are unprotected.

It is further to be observed, that the Protection of His Grace's Rights respecting Game and Unappropriated Lands, does not appear to have been affected by the Revesting Act, but continued in the same State until the passing of the Act of Tynwald in the Year 1777, for the Abolition of the Great Inquest.

A Cause of Misunderstanding between His Grace and the House of Keys is adverted to in that Part of the Instructions which represents, "That Laws were passed by the Legislature of the Isle of Man materially affecting the Duke of Atholl's Property, without his having any Means whatever of knowing the Nature of those Laws; and upon that Ground Caveats have been entered by him against His Majesty's Assent being given to those Enactments." And also, "That Complaints have been made on the Part of the Keys, that in consequence of those Interruptions, very inconvenient Delays are created, and Regulations for the internal Government of the Island prevented."

In conformity to the Tenor of our Instructions, we should have endeavoured to point out such Remedies as might appear to us best calculated to. remove the Grounds of those Complaints, but this Part of our Duty became unnecessary.

After the Duke of Atholl had closed the Evidence in support of his Allegations, we declared our Intention of proceeding to the Part of our Instructions last stated, when His Grace informed us, that certain Propositions had been made by the Keys, tending to an Accommodation of those Matters concerning which we meant to inquire; and that the House had come to a Resolution on the Subject, which he should lay before us. He afterwards produced a Paper, signed John Taubman, Speaker, dated 4th October, 1791, which Paper His Grace stated to have been officially communicated to him by the Lieutenant Governor of the Island, and which was in the Words following:

"Isle of Mann.

At a Meeting of the Keys, at their House in Castletown, upon the 4th Day of October, 1791


"Resolved, That the Keys on their Part shall concur, and they hereby propose and offer to concur, with the Governor and Council in passing an Act of Tynwald, to render public every intended new Law, in its Progress before the Legislature in thisthis Isle and also to require, that a Copy of every Bill intended, to be passed into Law, be delivered to His Grace the Duke of Atholl's Principal Steward or Agent in this Isle for the Time being three Months at least before such Bill shall pass the Legislature in the Island; and also to concur in any Bill or Bills which may be submitted to the Consideration of the Legislature; in order to give His Grace the Duke of Atholl every reasonable and necessary Relief he can possibly require, with respect to the Protection and Regulation of His Grace's Manerial Rights, consistent with the Constitution of the Island , and the Keys are and shall be ready to receive and take into Consideration, such Bill or Bills as His Grace may offer for the Protection and Regulation of his Manerial Rights, whenever His Grace shall think proper.

By Order of the House,


After the above Resolution had been read, the Duke of Atholl and the House of Keys severally declared, that the said Resolution had rendered all further Discussion on their Parts unnecessary, respecting the Representations of the Duke on the one hand, and the Complaints of the Keys on the other; and they respectively declined entering into any further Evidence relative thereto before us.

Upon an attentive Consideration of the Resolution thus delivered in, and also of the Declarations made by both the Parties, we were of Opinion, that it precluded the Necessity of proceeding in this Part of our Inquiry.

We then referred the Duke of Atholl and the Keys to the only remaining Part of the Instructions which seemed likely to produce any adverse Discussion, namely, "That it had been stated by some of the Inhabitants of the Island, not only that the Grievances stated by the Duke were exaggerated, but that the Remedies which the Duke of Atholl had at any Time suggested, were incompatible with, the quiet and secure Enjoyment of the Rights and Possessions immemorially held, by them, and which are equally entitled to the attentive Consideration of Government."

Thereupon the Duke of Atholl and the Keys severally declared, they considered that the Resolution above-mentioned provided a Remedy for the Insular Grievances complained of in the last Part of the Instructions, and rendered any Discussion touching the Remedies at any Time suggested by the Duke of Atholl unnecessary; and they therefore severally declined adducing any Evidence relative thereto.

So that any Discussion touching this Part of our Instructions, became in like Manner unnecessary.


Back index next


Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received The Editor
HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 1999