# Manx Primary Source Archive — Transcription

**Source image:** `20260219_105726.jpg`  
**Transcribed:** 2026-02-25 20:32  
**Method:** Automated (Claude Batch API — claude-opus-4-6)

---

The Duke of Atholl v Dawson & Others —

As my Attention has not been drawn by Particular Queries to any Particular
Points in the Bill & Answers &c laid before me I have endeavoured to collect the
Grounds of the Duke's Claim and the Objections Principally rested upon by the
Defen^ts from a Perusal of the whole

They may be comprized under the following Heads
I^mo The Jurisdiction of the Court
II^do The Defects of the Bill
III^tio The Merits of the Duke's Claim

I^mo As to the Jurisdiction
Upon the general Ground of the Isle of Man being a separate Kingdom to
which no Act of Parliament extends unless it be included in its Nomination & to which no
English Writ or Process runs. I sho^d have been inclined to think the Jurisdiction of the Court
incompetent. But the Case of the Attorney General & Lucas seems to have settled it the
other way & upon this Question I shou^d think that in Consequence of that Precedent the
Objection to the Jurisdiction will be over ruled. Especially as the Court of Exchequer has
in the Room of the Court of Augmentations to have Jurisdiction over the Lands of all
dissolved Monasteries & the Dissolution of the Monastery of Rushen was by a
British Act of Parliament which subjected those Lands to the Jurisdiction of the
Court of Augmentations and now to the Representative of that Court —

II^do As to the Defects of the Bill
Knowing the deservedly high Reputation for Knowledge & Accuracy of the
Person who subscribed the Bill I submit my Observations on this Head with the Deference
due to such Authority.

1 It seems to me worth considering whether the Bill sho^d not be Amended by
stating James Duke of Atholl to be Heir to the Grantor by Virtue of the Act of Parliament
passed to prevent James Duke of Atholl from suffering by the Forfeiture of his Decl Brother
instead of stating him only to be Right Heir as now set forth. At the same Time as the
Court will probably Admit the Act of Parliament to be given in Evidence. If the Bill
is not to be amended at any Rate, the Form in which it now stands may serve without
being liable to the Objections stated in the Answers —

2 If the Heirs of Bishop Barrow the Grantee can be discovered it may be
adviseable to add them as Def^ts. But it does not seem necessary to be at much trouble
or any Expence to discover them, because the Grant of the Premises in Question is to
the Bishop & his Assigns (not to his Heirs) Applicable to the special Purposes set out
in the Deed —

MS 09707/8/4

AP 143-8