PP 2016/0099

TYNWALD HONOURS COMMITTEE

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2015-2016

TYNWALD HONOURS COMMITTEE

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2015-2016

There shall be a Standing Committee of the Court to consider nominations of deceased persons for inclusion in the Manx Patriots‘ Roll of Honour and to recommend to Tynwald the award of honours by the Court to living persons.

The Committee shall be composed of the President, who shall be the chairman, the Speaker of the and three Members.

The Committee shall report to Tynwald at least once during the life of each House of Keys, but not necessarily to make a recommendation.

Any recommendation made by the Tynwald Honours Committee shall be subject to the approval of a majority of the whole of Tynwald sitting in public and voting as one body.

The Committee shall be responsible for the erection and ongoing maintenance of the Manx Patriots’ Roll of Honour which shall be maintained in a prominent position in the public part of the Precincts of Tynwald.

A plaque shall be placed in a prominent position at a site in the Island appropriate to the person admitted to the Roll and the Committee may consider presenting a suitable memento to the family of the person concerned.

The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984.

Committee Membership

The Hon C M Christian MLC ex officio (Chairman) The Hon S C Rodan SHK ex officio ()

Mr C G Corkish MBE MLC

Mr D C Cretney MLC

Hon R A Ronan MHK (Castletown)

Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel 01624 685520, Fax 01624 685522) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.im.

All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the , Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW.

Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND ...... 1

II. NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS PROPOSED FOR ADDITION TO THE MANX PATRIOTS' ROLL OF HONOUR ...... 2

III. THE FORM OF THE MANX PATRIOTS' ROLL OF HONOUR ...... 3

IV. COMMEMORATING TYNWALD HONOUR RECIPIENTS ...... 4

V. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5

VI. ANNEX A - MANX PATRIOTS’ ROLL OF HONOUR ...... 6

VII. ANNEX B - RECIPENTS OF THE TYNWALD HONOUR ...... 6

VIII. ANNEX C - EVENTS LEADING TO THE HOUSE OF KEYS ELECTION ACT 1866 ...... 7

IX. ANNEX D - BIOGRAPHIES ...... 13

ROBERT FARGHER (1803-1863) 13

JAMES BROWN (1815-1881) 18

SAMUEL NORRIS MHK MLC (1875-1948) 19

To: The Hon Clare M Christian, President of Tynwald,

and the Hon Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled

TYNWALD HONOURS COMMITTEE FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2015-2016

I. BACKGROUND

1. The Tynwald Honours Committee was established in December 1998 following Tynwald approval of all of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Manx Patriots. That Committee recommended that the Tynwald Honours Committee be established to vet nominations for inclusion in a Manx Patriots’ Roll of Honour for deceased persons and that:

Any recommendation made by the Committee should be subject to the approval of a majority of the whole of Tynwald sitting in public and voting as one body.

2. The recommended criteria for inclusion on the Manx Patriots’ Roll of Honour are:

(1) before the name of any person is recommended for inclusion in the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour that person must be shown to have disinterestedly or self-sacrificially exerted himself or herself to promote the well-being of the ;

(2) no living person be considered for inclusion in the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour; and

(3) inclusion in the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour be not restricted to persons born in the Island or of Manx parentage.

1 3. The Roll of Honour was duly established and the names of those on it are at Annex A.

4. In December 2002 the Select Committee on the Reduction of Standing Committees of Tynwald recommended that Tynwald be empowered to confer honours in its own right and that the Tynwald Honours Committee make recommendations about the awarding of honours to living Manx persons to Tynwald Court.

5. Recommendations setting out the criteria for the awarding of the Honour, the procedure for nomination of potentially suitable persons, the process for approval of such nominations and the procedure for presenting the Honour were set out in a report and approved by Tynwald Court in July 2005. The Tynwald Honour was first awarded in 2007 and the names of the recipients since then are at Annex B.

II. NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS PROPOSED FOR ADDITION TO THE MANX PATRIOTS' ROLL OF HONOUR

6. This year the Committee has chosen to focus on the 150th anniversary of the House of Keys Election Act 1866 in considering possible additions to the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour. A short history of the events leading to this legislation being enacted may be found in Annex C.

7. For each nominee we reviewed the biographical information set out in Annex D with reference to criteria set out in paragraph 2 above.

8. Manx born Robert Fargher was a relentless campaigner for democratic elections. A journalist he founded the Mona’s Herald in 1833 and was imprisoned on several occasions for his views.

9. James Brown came to the Isle of Man in 1846, in his early 30’s, he worked as a journalist and in 1861 he founded the Isle of Man Times. He consistently challenged the unrepresentative nature of the House of Keys. He was famously imprisoned by the Keys for libel in 1864 but released after it was ruled that the Keys did not have the powers to sentence him.

10. Samuel Norris moved to the Isle of Man when he was 19 and became a reporter with the Manx Sun. A vocal proponent for institutional reform, including that of

2 the Island’s legal and legislative systems he founded the Manx Reform League in 1903. He was jailed in 1915 in connection with his campaign for rates relief for tourist businesses. In 1919 he was elected to the House of Keys where he served three terms before moving to the Legislative Council. A lifelong campaigner many of his constitutional ideas were adopted following the MacDermott report in 1959.

11. We agreed to recommend that Robert Fargher, James Brown and Samuel Norris be considered for inclusion in the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour with regard to their contribution to electoral and constitutional reform.

Recommendation 1

That Tynwald approves the following for inclusion in the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour:

a. Robert Fargher (1803-1863)

b. James Brown (1815-1881)

c. Samuel Norris MHK MLC (1875-1948)

III. THE FORM OF THE MANX PATRIOTS' ROLL OF HONOUR

12. We have considered previous recommendations regarding the way in which the Manx Patriots’ Roll of Honour should be presented and have noted that while the previous recommendation regarding a display within the Precincts of Tynwald has been completed, those regarding a Roll of Honour Book, commemorative plaques, presentation of a memento to the family, where appropriate, and inclusion on the Tynwald website have not.

13. The Chamber and Information Service are currently redrafting the information on the display screen in the Finch Road entrance of Legislative Buildings and have been asked, as part of this work, to ensure that a more detailed record of each recipient is included within a dedicated section of the Tynwald website.

14. With respect to a more permanent, commemorative Roll of Honour we explored options in relation to the previous recommendations of having a book and plaques.

3 15. We felt that a commemorative book was no longer a necessity as publishing the information on the Tynwald website offers a far more flexible and accessible way of providing easy access to the information, both in the Legislative Buildings and elsewhere.

16. We did however consider that a permanent, commemorative Roll of Honour was still a requirement and so we looked at the options for plaques. We found that, whilst possible, these may be difficult to locate and would require a long term maintenance commitment. So we discussed other options.

17. We concluded that a Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour Board located in a prominent position, for example at St Johns, would be a fitting alternative which would be easier to update and maintain in the long term.

Recommendation 2

That Tynwald approves the creation of a Manx Patriots’ Roll of Honour Board, prominently located, as an alternative to commemorative plaques.

IV. COMMEMORATING TYNWALD HONOUR RECIPIENTS

18. When considering a Roll of Honour Board we discussed the commemoration for Tynwald Honour recipients. In the past it has been assumed that Tynwald Honour recipients will be added to the Roll of Honour when they die.

19. We felt that the awarding of the Tynwald Honour is similar but separate and discussed how this may be commemorated.

20. We agreed that a separate Tynwald Honour section on the Tynwald website with information about each recipient would be appropriate for providing information; and further that a Tynwald Honour Board located close to the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour Board would be a suitable commemoration.

Recommendation 3

That Tynwald approves the creation of a Tynwald Honour Board, prominently located close to the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour Board.

4 V. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1

That Tynwald approves the following for inclusion in the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour:

a. Robert Fargher (1803-1863)

b. James Brown (1815-1881)

c. Samuel Norris MHK MLC (1875-1948)

Recommendation 2

That Tynwald approves the creation of a Manx Patriots’ Roll of Honour Board, prominently located, as an alternative to commemorative plaques.

Recommendation 3

That Tynwald approves the creation of a Tynwald Honour Board, prominently located close to the Manx Patriots' Roll of Honour Board.

C M Christian (Chairman)

S C Rodan

C G Corkish

D C Cretney

R A Ronan

June 2016

5 VI. ANNEX A - MANX PATRIOTS’ ROLL OF HONOUR

Edward Christian 1600-1661 Electoral Reformer William Christian - Illiam Dhone 1608-1663 Manx Patriot Godred Crovan d. 1095 First King of Mann and the Isles Rt Revd Thomas Wilson DD 1663-1755 Church and Educational Reformer and Historian Rt Revd Isaac Barrow DD 1614-1680 Church and Educational Reformer Eleanor (Nellie) Brennan 1792-1859 Nursed Cholera Victims Revd Thomas Edward Brown 1830-1897 Manx National Poet Major Robert Henry Cain VC TD 1909-1974 Gallant and Distinguished Soldier Sir Thomas Henry CH KBE 1853-1931 Author and Constitutional Reformer MHK Sir William Percy Cowley KBE CBE 1886-1958 Constitutional Reformer and Culturalist John Christian Curwen MP MHK 1756-1828 Agricultural Reformer MBE RBV 1898-1987 Poet, Folklorist and Collector Sir James Gell CVO JP 1823-1905 Constitutional Reformer Sir William Hillary Bt 1771-1847 Founder of RNLI Sir Henry SHK OBE 1917-2003 Reforming Parliamentarian LLD(hc) CP SHK CVO JP 1853-1909 Constitutional Reformer and Historian Henry Bloom Noble 1816-1903 Public Benefactor Sir Joseph Davidson Qualtrough SHK 1885-1960 Constitutional Reformer CBE JP Captain John Quilliam RN 1771-1829 Distinguished Naval Officer Marion Shimmin MHK 1878-1942 First Female MHK Mavis Kelly LRAM 1926-2005 Musician and Teacher

VII. ANNEX B - RECIPENTS OF THE TYNWALD HONOUR

Norman Alexander Sayle RI TH 2007 Artist and Teacher Harvey Briggs TH 2008 Farmer and Journalist Ian Qualtrough JP TH 2009 Businessman and Entertainer Dr Brian Stowell RBV TH 2010 Manx Gaelic Teacher and Broadcaster His Honour Thomas CBE QC RBV TH 2011 Conservationist and Constitutionalist His Honour John William Corrin CBE QC TH 2012 Charitable work and Constitutionalist Nadine Crowther MBE TH 2013 Charitable work with Hospice Hector Duff MM BEM TH 2014 Public Service and Charitable work Geoff Karran MBE TH 2015 Public Service and Charitable work

6 VIII. ANNEX C - EVENTS LEADING TO THE HOUSE OF KEYS ELECTION ACT 1866

By the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the Isle of Man had largely adjusted to its new status as a Crown Dependency, acquired in 1765 as a result of the Purchase or Revestment Act. The Island had capitalised on its unique position, at the centre of the British Isles but politically distinct from the United Kingdom, by promoting itself as a safe and comfortable location for the moderately wealthy, who could enjoy the lack of direct taxation, poor rates, crime, and political turmoil. Servicing the needs and wants of these ‘gentlemanly stranger-residents’ resourced the local economy in the absence of smuggling. Many of these new residents would go on to play prominent roles in the reform movement. At this time, the House of Keys was a self-electing body. Membership was for life, and when there was a vacancy due to death or resignation, the House nominated two contenders, one of whom was ‘elected’ by the Governor. The Members were mostly ‘principal landowners’ in the Island, along with a relatively large number of lawyers. Although non-natives could and did sit in the Keys, they tended to have family connections that eased them into their seats. ‘[T]he Keys cemented the alliance between the leading landed and legal families’.1 This was a cause of complaint for the reformers: ‘The whole of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, are so mingled, twisted, and interwoven through each other, that the same individuals confront you in some guise or other, from the lowest to the Highest court in the land’.2 There had been a petition for reform in 1791, signed by ‘most of the principal people in the island’, but the reform movement picked up speed in the 1830s.3 The 1830s saw increased calls for reform, with newly established newspapers such as the Mona’s Herald and the Manx Liberal offering a platform for the reformers and their criticism of the ‘Castletown clique’. The desire for reform was doubtlessly inspired by events elsewhere in the world, particularly the UK Parliament’s Reform Act of 1832 by which the House of Commons became a popularly elected Chamber, but the Manx reform movement also has to be understood in the context of the fear at the time that the Island would be incorporated into the UK, which resulted in the anti-assimilation campaigns of the 1830s. While the reform movement itself was not a popular uprising, but rather the work of a minority led by figureheads such as Robert Fargher, the fear of annexation was widespread in the Island.4

1 Belchem 2000, p. 24. 2 Manx Liberal, 17 April 1847, cited in Belchem 2000, p. 24. 3 Manx Worthies, p. 186. 4 Gawne 2009, p. 83; Kneale 1959, p. 89.

7 In 1836, the Ecclesiastical Commission recommended to Westminster that the bishopric of Sodor and Mann be merged with that of Carlisle; the proposed merger was met with vigorous resistance in the Island organised through formal and other channels, such as open public meetings, house-by-house canvassing for petitions, and the appointment of delegates to the House of Commons, and the clause recommending the merger was repealed in July 1838. The UK Government’s proposals in July 1836 and January 1837 for Customs assimilation met with even greater resistance. Such a radical change in fiscal regulations was thought by many to spell disaster for the Island, since it could result in the departure of the ‘gentlemanly stranger-residents’ who supported the local economy. The main petition was signed by 3783 inhabitants, and delegates were chosen and sent to London to argue the Island’s case; the death of William IV, however, put a stop to the scheduled interview and the proposals for assimilation. The case did, however, expose the vulnerable position of the self-elected House of Keys, since their argument against assimilation had been based on the principle of ‘no taxation without representation’.5 While conservatives were fearful of undermining the historical authority of the legislature through any change, the argument of the reformers was that ‘[b]y reforming itself, the Island would be left alone, free from critical gaze and the threat of incorporation into the United Kingdom’.6 Petitions to reform the House of Keys followed in the autumn of 1837, gaining 1032 signatures. Although he initially rejected the petitions, Governor Ready was nevertheless compelled to forward them to the Home Office, where they did not receive any attention. The 1840s saw various moves towards fiscal reform, with support from Dr John Bowring, MP for Bolton. There was increasing criticism from merchants and reformers, both English and Manx, of the harbour dues and fiscal duties in place in the Island. Particular criticism was directed at the licence system, which had been brought in to prevent smuggling: any articles subject to high duties in Great Britain could only be imported to the Isle of Man under licence, and the Manx establishment was accused of only handing out licences to those in its favour. In response, the British government put forward a

5 ‘If then the claim in question rests on the constitution of the Isle of Man, it will be found that no tax, duty, or custom could or can at any time be imposed, without the joint assent of the Lord of the Island, of the Council, and of the House of Keys, which is the House of Assembly of the representatives of the people of the island. If it depend on the constitution of Great Britain, we have only to remind your Lordship that it is a vital part of its constitution, that no tax can be imposed without the consent of the tax-payer. The Isle of Man, however, forms no part of the United Kingdom, and hence its consent can only be obtained by its local Legislature’ (extract from letter from delegates to Lord John Russell, Home Secretary, 8 June 1837 cited in Belchem 2000, pp. 35-36). 6 Belchem 2000, p. 37.

8 package of measures in 1844, by which an increase in fiscal duties would allow the abolition or suspension of ad valorem duties and the licence system for tobacco, spirits, and perfume. Lobbying by Bowring resulted in amendments to the Bill which included the abolition of harbour dues and an annual grant of £2300 out of Customs revenue for use by Harbour Commissioners. After the Fiscal Bill came into force in 1844, there was no reversion to smuggling and no decrease in the population, both of which had been predicted. On the back of these successful fiscal reforms, Bowring turned his attention to political reform. He argued that free trade required free institutions, and that rather than overturn the House of Keys, the people would do better to reform it. This brought fresh encouragement to the reform movement, resulting in a major petitioning campaign for an elected House of Keys. In January and February 1845, three petitions, signed by 5386 inhabitants, were presented to Governor Ready.7 The petitions were rubbished by the Governor and the House of Keys, who were in turn met with a point-by-point rebuttal by the reformers. By doing so, the reformers were able to keep the idea of reform at the forefront of public attention, while undermining the credibility of the House of Keys. The reformers were able to draw upon various public complaints in the 1840s. The assimilation of Manx currency with that of Great Britain in 1840 had been the cause of extensive rioting, and other legislation proved similarly contentious - for instance the introduction of game licences, the proposed registration of the medical profession, restrictions on printing, and laws for the civil registration and solemnization of marriage were all unpopular. A particular cause of discontent was the collapse of the Isle of Man Joint Stock Bank in July 1842: its manager and all of its directors were Members of the House of Keys and as such did not have to face any consequences. This exposed the ’system of falsehood, fraud, and wilful imposition’ endemic in the Island’s institutions, and prompted Bowring into a full-scale critical examination of Manx law. The 1848 Towns Bill was another source of disquiet. Although intended to enable the towns to elect commissioners and levy rates for paving, cleaning, sewerage, lighting and other such amenities, it was rejected in Douglas as a result of a public campaign organised by William Kelly and other prominent reformers. While they agreed with the principle of the Bill, for the reformers ‘the Towns Bill symbolised the inequities of a political system dominated by “landed proprietors residing in the country”, exposing the underrepresentation and over-taxation (in the highway fund) of the towns’.8

7 The total male population at the time was calculated by J J Moore to be eight thousand (Belchem 2000, p.48) 8 Belchem 2000, p. 59.

9 The 1850s saw moves towards the application of surplus Customs revenue to Manx purposes. In 1853, the British government announced its intention to abolish the last remnants of the licence system and ad valorem duties, again with the plan of increasing duties in order to prevent smuggling. There was some anxiety when the Treasury decided to incorporate the new duties into the General Customs Consolidation Bill, but negotiations resulted in the long title of the Bill being amended to be ‘a consolidation of the Customs Acts of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man’. While there was a general appreciation of the benefits brought by the Bill, the Keys decided to take a stand on constitutional principle. They sent a delegation to London to remind the British Government of the Island’s almost-independent status, and in the process to stage an attempt to gain access to the surplus revenue. They were met with the irritated response from Wilson at the Treasury that ‘if the House of Keys had been a representative body, elected by the people of the island, the Lords of the Treasury would have been disposed to have taken a much more favourable view of your proposal to entrust to it the administration of these funds’.9 While the Keys subsequently attempted to turn this argument to their advantage, by signalling their willingness to move towards enfranchisement, Governor Hope remained opposed to any electoral reform. A settlement regarding the surplus revenue was, however, finally reached, with the Island being given one-ninth of the gross annual revenue to spend on public works, such as the harbours. With the rising importance of tourism to the economy, adequate harbour provisions were becoming essential. In 1854, Governor Hope negotiated for a Treasury loan to be ‘borrowed on the Security of the Revenue already devoted to the improvement of the Harbours’.10 After lengthy negotiations, a Bill was passed and the loan granted. The Admiralty ensured that Abernethy’s plans for the Douglas breakwater were selected, seemingly because of their low cost. Abernethy’s proposal was for a creosoted wooden superstructure on a sloping foundation of loose rubble’. This decision would have consequences for electoral reform a decade later. The 1860s saw the appointment as Governor of Henry Brougham Loch, who would go on to play a pivotal role in securing electoral reform. Nevertheless, upon his appointment in February 1863, Loch was not immediately sympathetic with the reformers’ case. He rejected all of the grievances detailed in a petition of 3373 signatories, which had been initiated by J J Moore and which called for a select committee to investigate the conduct of the ‘irresponsible self-elected Keys’ in three areas: the injustices of disafforestation, whereby unappropriated public lands and

9 Belchem 2000, p. 61. 10 Hope to Fitzroy 26 Sept 1854, cited in Belchem 2000, p. 65.

10 forests had been enclosed for use by the Crown; the taxation imposed for the building of a lunatic asylum; and the expenditure of public funds on inadequate harbour structures. Loch’s mind was, however, soon to be changed on this matter. The case of James Brown in 1864 exposed many of the anachronisms of the Manx political system. In a report of the proceedings of the House of Keys in his newspaper the Isle of Man Times, Brown had made the comment that ‘this elicited marks of approval of the donkeys around him’.11 This was a reference to remarks made about the newly created Douglas Town Commissioners, who were described in the Keys as only fit to control donkeys on the beach. Brown was accused of libel and called to defend himself at the bar of the House, which still acted in a judicial capacity. Upon his arrival, he was informed that the House had already resolved that Brown was guilty of contempt, and that his defence was further aggravation of contempt; this led to his imprisonment at Castle . When his son entered an appeal in the Court of Queen’s Bench, his lawyer ‘pointed out the anomalous position held by the House of Keys as a self-elected legislature which “presumed to constitute themselves into judge and jury to try and adjudicate upon their own complaint”’.12 Brown won the court claim and was awarded damages. It was, however, the poor state of the Douglas breakwater that was to set the wheels of political franchise in motion. It was immediately clear to Loch that the Abernethy design for the breakwater would be unable to withstand stormy weather. Construction had already reached the halfway stage in 1863 when a report deemed it ‘wholly inadequate’.13 During 1864, storms washed away the rubble foundation and it was found that the superstructure was too weak to resist the pressure of the rubble-filled wooden frames placed on it; the breakwater was finally swept away in a storm in January 1865. Loch set about negotiating with the British Government to raise the funds needed to repair the harbour works. Loch took personal charge of the discussions, not involving Tynwald until the final package had been agreed. In a letter to Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary, dated 21st March 1865, Loch made a proposal to raise revenue through increases in duty up to British levels, i.e. Customs assimilation, which would improve the Island’s revenue. Following a meeting with Hugh Childers, Financial Secretary of the Treasury, in December 1865, a number of decisions were made which substantially changed the operation and use of Manx public finances. This included a contribution of £10,000 to be paid into the British Consolidated Fund (now known as the Annual Contribution), and most importantly, the provision that ‘any clear surplus not expended should then form part of the Isle of Man’s own Accumulated Fund.

11 Gawne 2009, p. 153. 12 Gawne 2009, p. 156. 13 Gawne 2009, p. 151.

11 Tynwald Court was to have control of it for public purposes, subject to the supervision of the Treasury and the veto of the Governor and all at the risk of the Island.’14 When Loch put the proposals for amending control of the Island’s customs to the separate branches of Tynwald in March 1866, in the form of the Isle of Man Customs, Harbours and Public Purposes Act, he presented electoral reform as a precondition for the new financial arrangements. Although Loch had initially rejected Moore’s petition for reform, the need to raise public funds for improvements led him to realise that there could be ‘no taxation without representation’.15 On 21st March 1865, Loch had penned a separate letter to Sir George Grey, asking whether the British Government would approve of his suggestions to make the House of Keys an elected body; the reply less than a week later stated no objections. The British Government did not, however, specify that electoral reform had to be a condition of the new financial arrangements; this was Governor Loch’s own doing, something that he did not tell Tynwald. Loch’s arguments were persuasive, and, following some discussion, the House of Keys finally agreed to electoral reform, with the recommendations being agreed by Tynwald in March 1866. The House of Keys Election Act was passed on 16th August 1866, with the first elections scheduled to take place in April 1867. Sources Belchem, John: ‘The Onset of Modernity, 1830-1880’, in: The Modern Period 1830- 1999: A New History of the Isle of Man, Volume 5 (Liverpool: LUP, 2000), pp. 18-93. Gawne, C W: The Isle of Man and Britain: Controversy, 1651-1895. From Smuggling to the Common Purse (Isle of Man: Manx Heritage Foundation, 2009). Kneale, W T : ‘The Trials of a Manx Radical – the Life and Times of Robert Fargher’, in: The Journal of the Manx Museum VI 1957-1965, pp. 89-93. Moore, A W : Manx Worthies or Biographies of Notable Men and Women (Isle of Man: S K Broadbent & Co Ltd, 1901).

14 Gawne 2009, p. 161. 15 ‘When the question of increased taxation arose, I was not prepared to accede to it without representation; and I could not admit that her Majesty’s subjects residing in the Isle of Man were not to enjoy those rights which were enjoyed in other parts of the United Kingdom’. Loch to Grey (Confidential), 21 Mar 1865, cited in Belchem 2000, p. 82.

12 IX. ANNEX D - BIOGRAPHIES

Robert Fargher (1803-1863)

Robert Fargher was born in Maughold in 1803. At the age of 14 he went to London, where he worked as a private secretary for three years. He then returned to the Isle of Man to become an apprentice to George Jefferson, the printer and publisher of the newspaper the Manks Advertiser, which had a strong Tory, Church, and State bias. Soon after starting his apprenticeship, Fargher became involved in the Methodist Revivalist movement. As his views became more radical, his work for the Advertiser grew distasteful to him, so in 1833, he persuaded William Walls, a fellow printer, to start up a new newspaper with him, which they named the Mona’s Herald.

The Mona’s Herald was designed to be ‘the organ of political reform, nonconformity, and temperance.’16 In the first issue, the founders promised ‘an honest, impartial and intrepid newspaper, undismayed by the frowns of power and incorruptible by the smile of favouritism’; they explained that they were ‘fettered by no bonds of patronage’, and ‘neither gratitude for benefits received nor servility for favours to come’.17 ‘As advocates of reform and improvement, they held the Castletown clique responsible for the persistence of otherwise discredited traditions and practices’.18 It was the longest running Manx newspaper, lasting almost 150 years from its foundations, and before its first edition appeared, it had more subscribers than those of both its rivals put together.19

Robert Fargher was relentless in his criticism of the Manx establishment, and the self-elected House of Keys in particular. As W T Kneale has commented, ‘[w]hatever else was said of Robert Fargher (and his press rivals and political opponents heaped plenty of abuse on him) he was never charged with timidity or servility. He lashed out with tremendous gusto at bureaucratic ineptitude, absentee officials, abuses of public rights and liberties, and increasingly at the self-elected Keys and their practice of sitting in private to deal with matters affecting the whole community’.20 In the early 1830s, Fargher even staged a protest by knocking on the door of the House of Keys and demanding admission ‘in the name of the people of this Island’. The Keys, who were meeting in private, ordered the Secretary to bolt the door against the intruder.

16 Manx Worthies, p. 186. 17 Cited in Kneale 1959, p. 89. 18 Belchem 2000, p. 24. 19 Gawne 2009, p. 114. 20 Kneale 1959, p. 89.

13 One of the first high-profile matters to gain Fargher and Walls’ attention was the looting of the John Fairfield, which was wrecked on the Island in November 1834. They claimed that the looting was ‘prolonged (if not facilitated) by dereliction of duty on the part of George Quirk, the Water Bailiff, and other officials’.21 ‘Investigation into these “scenes of outrageous and unparalleled plunder” (a matter of serious concern in Whitehall) exonerated Quirk from complicity in nefarious plundering, but it exposed the worst aspects of the insular establishment: nepotism, pluralism, absenteeism and intolerance of criticism’.22 Quirk, who held a number of offices in Tynwald, was a favourite of Governor Ready, and his brother James Quirk also held a number of offices. In the absence of the Attorney-General James Clarke, who lived in Lancashire, Quirk’s brother filed an ex-officio information against Fargher and Walls for defamation - an overreaction, since it was a measure intended ‘only to meet instances where danger to the state or government can be apprehended’.23 Although the terms in which Fargher and Walls expressed their criticism were thought to be improper, the veracity of the complaints was recognised by the Home Office, and James Clarke was ordered to undertake a full investigation.24 This resulted in a wide-ranging programme to improve law and order on the Island, including a major expansion of the police force.25

Fargher hoped to capitalise on the strength of public feeling after the Customs campaign when he began his campaign for electoral reform in 1837. The proposed suffrage qualification in the ‘Plan for an Elective House of Keys’ was low, being ‘all men paying One Pound Lord’s Rent per year and upwards, all Tenants of Land, or whole Houses, paying Five Pounds Rent per year and upwards’.26 Fargher also made the radical suggestion for meetings of the Keys, particularly in its judicial or appellate capacity, to rotate between the four towns. Petitions were circulated in the autumn of 1837. [There were mixed reactions throughout Manx society to the calls for electoral reform, with particular enthusiasm being shown by those incomers who had become embroiled in the vagaries of Manx law.] The campaign did not end successfully. Although 1032 signatures were collected, including at least three- quarters of the landed proprietors of the Island according to the petitioners, the means by which they had been secured were called into question by Governor Ready. Ready also resorted to the threat of incorporation: ‘I have further to inform you that if a reform in the House of Keys is found to be really wanted, that a Representation for the Island in Parliament may be the measure of reform

21 Belchem 2000, p. 24. 22 Belchem 2000, pp. 24-25. 23 Cited in Belchem 2000, p. 25. 24 Belchem 2000, p. 25. 25 Belchem 2000, p. 27. 26 Cited in Belchem 2000, p. 38.

14 adopted’.27 Since the petitioners would only accept this response if it came from the Home Office, Ready was forced to forward the petitions to London. They did not, however, receive any attention there.

The collapse of the Isle of Man Joint Stock Bank in July 1842 came in for particular criticism by Fargher, who was one of the shareholders of the Bank:28 ‘references to the ‘Bank Swindle’ […] appeared in almost every issue of the Herald from that time’.29 G W Dumbell, lawyer, Member and Secretary of the House of Keys, and one of the partners of the failed Bank, was already one of Fargher’s biggest opponents: Fargher had ‘for some time singled out Dumbell as the worst of the gang of self- seekers in the House of Keys’.30 A number of ‘letters to the editor’ in the 1840s and 50s resulted in a series of acrimonious libel actions being brought against Fargher by Dumbell.31 These cases exposed many of the problems with the Manx political and judicial system, providing Fargher with more material to support his campaign for reform.

In December 1844, the Herald printed a letter from the anonymous ‘Bank Victim’, which accused those four members of the House of Keys who were also connected with the bank of hypocrisy: although these members were ‘warning the Manx people of all the fearful things which would befall them if they attempt to reform the House of Keys’, they themselves were untrustworthy, having printed and circulated many more banknotes than the £15,000 worth they were authorised to issue.32 The case was heard by Christian and Heywood, sitting with a special jury. The verdict twice was that the prisoner was guilty of ‘printing unlawfully but not maliciously’, which was not accepted twice by Heywood, who told the jury they must find the accused guilty or not guilty. The third time Fargher was found guilty, but the jury recommended merciful consideration. Fargher was released on bail, with the case being remitted to the Court of Exchequer for sentence. He was finally sentenced a year later, when he was found guilty and sentenced to ten days’ imprisonment, as well as a fine of £10. While jailed in Castle Rushen, he continued to write articles for the Herald. Having sought counsel on the legality of his imprisonment, Fargher refused to pay his fine or allow it to be paid for him, and he created trouble for the authorities by refusing to leave prison. He eventually left after 24 days. Upon his release on 15th December 1845, he was greeted by a public demonstration: ‘fifteen carriages assembled on Douglas Market Place to convey one

27 Cited in Belchem 2000, p. 40. 28 Belchem 2000, p. 52. 29 Kneale 1959, p. 90. 30 Chappell 1981, p. 22. 31 For an overview, see Kneale 1959, pp. 90-93, and Chappell 1989, pp. 22-27. 32 Kneale 1959, p. 90.

15 hundred and thirty well-known well-wishers to Castletown. With the procession went a brass band which struck up as the cavalcade approached Castle Rushen. Crowds of people poured into the Market Square and the jailer, fearing disorder, hastily sent for the to read the Riot Act if things got out of hand. But this proved unnecessary. A deputation entered the Castle and paid the fine - the money having been subscribed by sympathisers.’33 After handing the jailer a protest, Fargher addressed the crowd in the Market Square, before the procession set off to Douglas. In the evening, a meeting was held in the Wellington Hall in Fargher’s honour.

Two years later, in 1847, Fargher was in court again for libel at the instigation of Dumbell, this time for a letter from the anonymous ‘Manx Advocate’ which was ‘unquestionably a scurrilous attack on Dumbell’s character and his professional integrity’.34 This time, Fargher maintained that he did not know about the contents of the letter until it was published, thereby raising the defence that the libel was published without his authority, consent or knowledge. He stopped the sale of the newspaper, recalled its unsold copies and published an apology in an attempt to minimise the consequences. Deemster Heywood was, however, not persuaded by this, revealing his bias against Fargher when he commented, ‘what comparison is there between sending such a man as Fargher - a man in his position in life - to prison for six months, for twelve months or even for five years, to the injury done to Mr. Dumbell in his rank in Society by the infamous libel complained of?’.35 The jury - Henry Bloom Noble among its members - returned a verdict of guilty, resulting in three months’ imprisonment and a £50 fine and costs.36 ‘The conduct of the case, and particularly ’s part of the proceedings, came in for severe criticism in several English newspapers.’37

Upon his release in March 1848, Fargher was almost penniless, but one of his rival editors helped him to resume publication. He declared ‘his determination to carry on with the fight until Manxmen were “put in possession of those liberties and privileges of which they are at present deprived by the self-elect and irresponsible oligarchy whose object is - not the benefit of their country, but that of their order, and whose ruled has been a dogged obstinacy to every advancement calculated to benefit this Island and its inhabitants”’.38

33 Kneale 1959, p. 91. 34 Kneale 1959, p. 91. 35 Kneale 1959, p. 91. 36 Kneale 1959, p. 91; Chappell 1989, p. 23. 37 Kneale 1959, pp.91-92. 38 Cited in Kneale 1959, p. 92.

16 Ten years later, Fargher and Dumbell clashed again. This time it was a letter from the anonymous ‘Northside Pen’, complaining about Dumbell’s conduct towards the Ramsey Harbour Committee, who had sent a petition to the Home Office about what they considered to be the unfair allocation of money for harbour improvements in the Island. Dumbell was said to have ‘exercised a most pernicious influence on the hearths and homes of Mona and to whose machinations might be ascribed the most crushed and broken hearts, scattered families, blighted prospects and untimely graves’.39 In spite of an eloquent defence by Alfred Laughton and three other advocates, the jury nevertheless found Fargher guilty. This time the imprisonment was for 24 hours, with a fine of £50 and costs. Similar to events in 1844, money was raised by well-wishers to get him out within four hours, but he refused to leave; he stayed for another 16 days. When he was released, the jailer, following strict instructions, refused to receive Fargher’s protest against the conviction.

In response to the Customs deliberations of the 1850s, a public delegation was set up to represent the Island in London and try to ‘prevent any clause which could injure the Island being included in a Bill to reform the Customs Department’. Fargher was elected secretary of the delegation, which included Duff, Clarke, Samuel Harris and J J Moore, the chair. While they were happy with the amendment to the long title of the General Customs Consolidation Bill to include a reference to the Isle of Man, the House of Keys decided to take a stand on constitutional principle. This was met with the irritated response that had the House of Keys been an elected body, the Treasury might be more willing to hand over money to them.40 ‘As champions of Manx rights, the vulnerability of the Keys’ stance was soon exposed’.41

Fargher died on 12th August 1863, and as such did not live to see his dream of a freely elected House of Keys fulfilled. It is, however, a testament to his revolutionary thinking that one of the arguments used by Fargher in 1844 - namely that the Keys should not be allowed financial authority due to its status as an unelected body42 - was later used by Loch in 1866 to ensure electoral reform.

Sources

Belchem, John: ‘The Onset of Modernity, 1830-1880’, in: The Modern Period 1830- 1999: A New History of the Isle of Man, Volume 5 (Liverpool: LUP, 2000), pp. 18-93.

39 Kneale 1959, p. 92. 40 For more, see ‘Events Leading Up To 1866’, p. 3. 41 Belchem 2000, p. 61. 42 Albeit expressed in typically confrontational terms: he called Tynwald ‘a self-elected irresponsible body’, suggesting that elected parish commissioners should take command of the surplus revenue (Mona’s Herald, 17 Apr 1844, cited in Belchem 2000, p. 44).

17 Chappell, Connery: The Dumbell Affair: A remarkable and exciting story of intrigue in Manx Business Circles during the 19th century (Merseyside: T. Stephenson & Sons, 1981).

Gawne, C W : The Isle of Man and Britain: Controversy, 1651-1895. From Smuggling to the Common Purse (Isle of Man: Manx Heritage Foundation, 2009).

Kneale, W T : ‘The Trials of a Manx Radical – the Life and Times of Robert Fargher’, in: The Journal of the Manx Museum VI 1957-1965, pp. 89-93.

Moore, A W : Manx Worthies or Biographies of Notable Men and Women (Isle of Man: SK Broadbent & Co Ltd, 1901).

James Brown (1815-1881)

James Brown was born in Liverpool and moved to the Isle of Man in 1846 at the time of the so-called Printing Boom. The lack of taxes on newspapers in the Isle of Man and a loophole allowing publications to be sent to the mainland meant that the Island became a hotbed for the printing of Chartist publications with Republican ideals which were then sent to the UK (John, 2007). It was probably working in this environment which helped to inform Brown’s later opinions.

Following the end of the Printing Boom, Brown worked as a journalist, eventually founding and making himself editor of the liberal daily the Isle of Man Times in 1861. He called strongly for a democratically elected House of Keys and used his paper to explain in detail the changes he wished to see, for example in an article on the 24th March 1864 to explicitly dispel fears many had about the rise in taxes that would follow any constitutional changes (Brown, 1866).

His vocal criticisms of the Keys, which included calling them “despotic” (John, 2007), saw Brown, alongside the editor of Mona’s Herald, John C Fargher, (Robert Fargher’s son)43 brought to the bar on the 16th March 1864 (Brown, 1881), accused of libel. As opposed to Fargher who immediately apologised to the Keys for his actions and offered to print an apology, Brown stood by his opinions. As such, while Fargher consequently avoided prison, Brown was charged with libel and put into jail, then moved to debtors’ prison, where he was able to have visitors. As such he continued publishing defiant articles calling for the democratisation of the Keys throughout his time in jail, (John, 2007), calling Members “illiberal and dogmatic” (Brown, 1881) and was even photographed by a journalist for a paper while doing so in his cell.

43 http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/books/cubbon/p1350.htm

18 Not only was he able to continue with his writing and campaigning whilst in prison, but he served only 6 weeks of his 6-month sentence after an appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench44, made by his son and financed through an outpouring of public support, ruled that the Keys did not in fact have the authority to take such action (Laughton, 1916). Furthermore, on his release he was awarded £518 19s 6d in damages from the House of Keys.

Although exactly how much Brown’s actions influenced the democratisation of the Keys is debated (some have suggested that a plan to democratise it had already been decided) (Laughton, 1916), there is no doubt that the event badly damaged the reputation of the House (Brown, 1881) and changed the tide of public opinion. This marked a turning point in the Reform movement, which, from all sides, in the wake of his imprisonment was largely critical of the “arbitrary” nature of the Keys’ behaviour, and sped up the process of democratisation.

After James Brown’s death in 1881 his son John Archibald Brown continued to run the family business, publishing the Isle of Man Times, and the firm was contracted to print government publications and officially to report the proceedings of the legislature.

Sources

Brown’s Directory, 1881/2 http://www.isle-of- man.com/manxnotebook/fulltext/bd1881/p052.htm

John, Richard, Chartist Lives: James Brown http://richardjohnbr.blogspot.com/2007/08/chartist-lives-james-brown.html

Brown, James, Isle of Man Times 24 March 1866.

Laughton, A N, High- Bailiff Laughton’s Reminisces.

Samuel Norris MHK MLC (1875-1948)

Described as a “fearless leader of Manx democracy”, Samuel Norris was born in Lancashire in 1875 and moved to the Isle of Man in 1894. Despite having no formal education beyond primary school, from the age of 19 he began working as a reporter at the Manx Sun and later became Manx correspondent for various publications in England. He became an expert on Manx affairs and history, and was increasingly vocal about the need for institutional reform.

44 The Law Journal Reports, Vol 33 p193 May 7 1864 in the matter of James Brown

19 In 1903, under a pseudonym, he wrote a series of articles in the Liverpool Mercury concerning the problems in the Isle of Man institutions and outlining the changes that he viewed needed to be made (Fyson, 2005), calling for widespread institutional reform. This included criticism of the archaic legal system, the arbitrary power of the Governor and Council and weak role of the House of Keys, as well as disapproval of the state’s reliance on indirect taxation which unfairly disadvantaged poorer sections of society.

In the same year he founded the Manx Reform League (Cain, 1995) in order to push for the reforms he had previously outlined. As a radical liberal organisation it was able to obtain broader support than Socialist groups which had also been calling for reforms. He established branches across the Island and also enjoyed widespread support in the Keys (Norris, 1938).

Following this, in 1905 he launched an annual publication, the Manx Year Book (Fyson, 2005), which published information on government finances, salaries and all aspects of government, the first time this information was circulated in an easily- accessible format.

Between 1906 and 1909 he published the Manx Patriot which provided him with an outlet for his political views. He was listed as a witness in the 1911 MacDonnell Inquiry into the constitution of the Isle of Man as a representative of former members of the Manx National Reform league, which had by then ceased to exist, to present ‘certain historic evidence’.45

In 1915 he set up the War Rights Union to campaign for rate rebates and aid from the Manx Government for boarding house owners whose businesses had collapsed. The Union was also a way to protest against certain actions of the Government and Lieutenant Governor Lord Raglan which were seen as harmful to those involved in the tourist industry. In October of that year Norris was jailed for refusal to pay rates but also partly because of his work with many UK publications. His imprisonment attracted much attention (Fyson, 2005) with Questions asked in Westminster creating negative publicity for Tynwald. His imprisonment, as with other similar reform figures, meant that on his release from prison he became increasingly popular and gained more support for his cause.

In 1919 Norris was elected to the House of Keys and in 1920 he persuaded the House retire to its own chamber and to refuse to meet in Tynwald until its rights both to consider and approve increases in salaries were recognised and its demands for

45 Reports and Minutes of Evidence of the Departmental Committee on the Constitution &C.. of the Isle of Man, p131

20 increased financial control met. As a direct result of this "strike" action and a meeting with a deputation of MHKs in 1920, the Home Secretary, Edward Shortt, proposed, and the Keys accepted, that in future Lieutenant-Governors should put all financial proposals to both Chambers for private discussion and response, shall consider the responses and should if necessary discuss them with a deputation to reach agreement. Norris was elected to the Keys twice more, before being nominated for the Council. He worked in politics until his seventies and was famous for his impassioned, and often lengthy, speeches on a variety of issues. After his hard-worked-for reforms had been passed, he turned to other causes, including women’s rights, campaigning for a Married Women’s Property Act, which was passed in 1919; for pension provision for those over 70; and for better conditions for prisoners.

The MacDermott report, published in 1959 on constitutional reform, which led to the Constitutional Amendment Act, effectively summarised much of what Norris had published over half a century before, detailing a change in the structure of the Council and judicial reform. In fact, Norris is unique in that almost all of his campaigns were successful. Overall, Norris’s campaigning work was the catalyst for creating what was at the time described as “A new era in Manx affairs”.

Sources:

Brown & Son, Brown’s Directory of the Isle of Man 1894

Cain, T V, Deemster QC MA, Consitutional Reform in the Twentieth Century

Fyson, Robert, New Manx Worthies 2005

Manx Studies http://manxstudies.liv.ac.uk/sm/articles/dk.htm

Norris, S, Manx Memories and Movements

21

22

Parliamentary Copyright available from:

The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man, IM1 3PW British Isles June 2016 Tel: 01624 685520 Fax: 01624 685522 e-mail: [email protected] Price: £3.15