Abstract
Manx emancipation from English tutelage still falls short of independence. Island courts' and constitutionalists' efforts to reconcile the continuing role of Crown and Parliament with insular aspirations are typified by dicta of the Staff of Government Division in Crookall v Isle of Man Harbour Board and Re CB Radio Distributors.
These cases suggest the Queen legislates for the Island as Lord of Man, successor to its former rulers; whether with Parliament or with Tynwald is secondary, so an Act of either body can repeal inconsistent Acts of the other. This article contests the claim of continuity between former rulers and the Kings of England, also the assumption that there can be no hierarchy between different legislative acts of the one ruler.
This article argues that the law considers Man conquered by English arms in 1399, a continuity breach which gave King and Parliament unfettered law-making power as explained in Calvin's Case and Campbell v Hall. Centuries of government by royal tenants-in-chief do not affect the position after the surrender of their estate. Royal continuance of the former Lords' concessions to Tynwald, and Man's exclusion from the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, are both explicable on policy rather than constitutional grounds.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.