an affembly of the people; and fince the Duke of York did the fame thing in the province of New-York for about eighteen years, by virtue of a delegation of the powers of government to him from the Crown by King Charles's letters patent; and these two countries were not confidered as conquefts, but as plantations of Englishmen ; it follows, à fortiori, that in countries that are not only conquered, but confidered as conquered, the Crown may lawfully exercife the fame authority." This would have been a tolerably plausible argument, and much stronger than any of thofe which Lord Mansfield made use of in that judgment. But he did not make use of this argument; and indeed could not, confiftently with the opinion he delivered concerning planted countries, or colonies for in thefe he declared, that the king alone had not the power of making laws and impofing taxes, but the king and parliament conjointly, or the king and the affembly of the freeholders of the colony conjointly, agreeably to the opinion of Sir Philip Yorke and Sir Clement Wearg in the year 1722, concerning the island of Jamaica. He could not, therefore, make ufe of the foregoing argument à fortiori in favour of the king's fole legislative authority over conquered countries, which' is built upon the fuppofition of his Majefty's having had fuch an authority over planted countries, or colonies; because he denied the exiflence of the latter authority, which is its foundation. According to Lord Mansfield's doctrine, therefore, of the king's not being the fole legiflator of planted countries, the inflances of New-York and Jamaica cannot afford the above indirect argument à fortiori ia fupport of the king's fole legislative authority over conquered countries. Nor can they afford a direct argument, independently of the confideration of planted countries, in fupport of this authority; becaufe thofe places, or provinces (though really conquefts) were confidered and treated as planted countries. And therefore they ought not to have been cited by Lord Mansfield as proofs of the faid authority.As to the opinion of fuch lawyers (if there are any fuch at this day) as would go further than Lord Mansfield in their notions of the king's legislative authority, and would fay, that the king is the fole legiflator not only of all conquered countries, but of all planted countries in which he has not divefted himself of his authority by fome charter or proclamation, I fhall fay nothing to it, but that I agree with Lord Mansfield in confidering the opinion of fuch lawyers as erroneous with respect to planted countries, and that I am inclined to go beyond Lord Mansfield in thinking it likewife erroneous with refpect to conquered countries, or, at leaft, that the arguments adduced by his lordship in fupport of it in that latter cafe, are not fufficient to ellablifh it.

As to Gibraltar and Minorca, in which the king has made from time to time some regulations by his orders in his privy council, we have obferved, that the former of thefe places is really nothing more than a garrifon-town, without an inch of ground belonging to it beyond the fortifications; and that the latter of them, though an ifland of fome extent, has always been confidered by the people of England in nearly the fame light, or as an appendage to the fortrefs of St. Philip's castle, which defends the harbour of Mahon;-that its civil government has been intirely neglected by the minifiers of

ftate in Great Britain, ever fince the conqueft of it, and that no attempt has been made to encourage the profeffion of the Proteftant religion in it, or to introduce the English laws there, even upon criminal matters; and yet that the ftate of the laws, which are fuppofed to take place there, is fo uncertain and undetermined, that (though the old Spanish laws are fuppofed to be in force, and moft frequently appealed to) the inhabitants fometimes lead the English laws. And from thefe circumftances of neglect, confufion, and uncertainty, and likewife from the fmall importance of the subjects upon which the kings of Great-Britain have exercifer a legislative authority over these places by their orders in council (to laws for creating new felonies or capital crimes, or for impofing taxes on the inhabitants of thofe countries, or for any other very important purpofe, having ever been made with refpect to them) cluded, that neither this ifland nor the town of Gibraltar were fit examples to prove Lord Mansfield's affertion concerning the fole legiflative authority of the Crown over conquered countries.'

we con

From the preceding extract, our Readers will conceive of this Author, that he is not one of those flimfy writers who endeavour to gather confequence to themfelves, from the confequence of the doctrines or characters they attack; thofe obnoxious infects that buzz about perfons of high ftation, or diftinguished talents, and are perpetually watching to find fome vulnerable part, which they never leave till it is completely flyblown. The Canadian Freeholder combats argument with argument, and oppofes the honeft dignity of reafon to the grave voice of authority, and the folemnity of the judicial ermine.

The third argument on which Lord Mansfield infifted, was drawn from the opinion of the judges, as reported by Lord Coke, in Calvin's cafe, and of that of Sir Philip Yorke and Sir Clement Wearg (attorney and folicitor-general to George the first) in the year 1722, on a question referred to them concerning Jamaica.

Our Author endeavours to fhew, that the opinion of the judges in Calvin's cafe, instead of favouring the doctrine advanced by Lord Mansfield, was really contrary to it: and that the opinion of Sir Philip Yorke and Sir Clement Wearg (which is acknowledged to have been agreeable to Lord Mansfield's doctrine) was, according to Lord Mansfield's account of it, a very hafty opinion, upon which those learned lawyers appear to have bestowed very little attention; and that it must also be confidered as having but a small degree of authority in deciding a matter of this importance in favour of the Crown, on account of the bias which those gentlemen must be fuppofed to have had upon their minds, in favour of that fide of the question, from their poffeffion of the offices of attorney and folicitor-general.' Perhaps there is fome little artifice in this attempt to difcredit the opinions of Sir Philip Yorke and Sir Clement Wearg,

and

and is there not fome inconfiftency too? to ferve one turn of the argument, they are fuppofed to be neceffarily biafed by their offices in favour of the prerogative; to ferve another turn, they are reprefented paffing an opinion fo highly important to the Crown, with much hafte and little attention. Inattention, and hafte are furely not the ufual fymptoms of a head or heart eager to fupport a deep and deftructive fyftem, either political or moral. Our Author, however, does juftice to the profeffors of the law, in setting one law-officer against another; and thus leaving his argument concerning this bias (which he tells us, must be fuppofed to operate on the mind of an attorney and folicitor-general) in perfect equilibrio. He produces the opinions of two gentlemen who filled the ftation of attorneygeneral, and opposes them to the two authorities cited by Lord Mansfield. The firft is that of Sir William Jones, given while he was attorney-general to Charles II. and probably about the year 1677, against the fole legislative authority of the Crown over the American Plantations; the other is the opinion of Mr. Lechmere, while he was attorney-general to King George I. which is nearly to the fame effect with that of Sir William Jones. Thefe two learned names are fufficient to redeem the reputation of the Long Robe * in the present inftance. We fincerely with that fuch inftances were more numerous! Pity that they look fo like exceptions!

Our Author makes fome lively and juft remarks on the very peremptory manner with which Lord Mansfield inforced his arguments in this caufe; and which, he obferves, is agreeable to his conftant mode of fpeaking. This pofitiveness of affertion (he fays) may perhaps be confidered as one of the ingredients of his fpecies of eloquence, as it certainly has the effect of dazzling for a time, and overbearing his hearers into an acquiefcence in the truth of the propofitions he fo peremptorily afferts.' We fhall draw out the obfervation at full length.

FRENCHMAN.

Before I entirely quit the fubject, I must beg leave to exprefs my furprise at the very pofitive and peremptory manner in which Lord Manffield afferted this power of making laws for conquered countries to belong to the Crown. "No difpute, fays he, was ever ftarted before upon the king's legiflative right over a conqueft. It never was denied in Weftminster Hall; it never was questioned in parliament." And again, "No book, no faying of a judge, no opinion of any counsel,

The first mentioned gentlemen ought to have been exempted from the unhandfome infinuation of the Ganadian Freeholder. The pernicious union of the political and profeffional characters in our great law officers, was not fo folly established in the reign of George the firft, as in the prefent times. The opinions in question were delivered by them as lawyers in council, not as statesmen and orators in the fenate; in their profeffional, not their political character.

L

public

public or private, has been cited on the other fide; no inftance has been found in any period of our history, where a doubt has been railed concerning it." Thefe are ftrangely confident expreffions, confidering the weaknefs of the proofs he adduces in fupport of them; to which, indeed, they form a remarkable contraft. This, I confefs, has furprised me in a man fo much celebrated for his learning and abilities as Lord Mansfield. I therefore with to know how you account for it; and the rather, because this extreme pofitiveness in a man of his abilities has a tendency to dazzle and overbear my judgment, and make me yield implicitly to his opinion, notwithftanding I have fatisfied myself, by our difcuffion of this fubject, that the reasons he has adduced in fupport of it, are very weak.'

ENGLISHMAN.

Your remark is very just. There is a strange degree of pofitivenefs in his affertions, that is very ill fuited to the weakness of his arguments in fupport of them. And what makes it the more furprizing is, that he himself ordered this cafe of Campbell and Hall to be argued no less than three times, on three different days, at the bar, before he decided it; which would, furely, have been unneceffary, and, confequently, injurious to the parties (by forcing them to fuffer a needlefs delay, and incur an unneceffary degree of expence, in the profecution of their legal claims) if the matter had been fo extremely clear and free from doubt as he, in delivering his judgment, represents it. But that pofitiveness of affertion is agreeable to his conftant manner of fpeaking, and may, perhaps, be confidered as one of the ingredients of his fpecies of eloquence, as it certainly has the effect you mention, of dazzling, for a time, and overbearing his hearers into an acquiefcence in the truth of the propofitions he fo peremptorily afferts. But you, who have examined the reafons adduced by him in fupport of his affertion concerning the prefent fubject, and have found them to be infufficient, ought to break through the inchantment, and to yield to the conclufions of your own understanding, and embrace what appears to it to be the truth; agreeably to the old Latin proverb, Amicus Plato; Amicus Socrates; fed magis amica veritas.'

.

The dialogue clofes with a remark on the expediency of fettling the law on this subject by act of parliament (we need hardly add the Author's words), " in a manner contrary to Lord Mansfield's doctrine."

The Third Volume of this work is published, but we have not yet feen it.

ART. XI. An Analyfis of the Political Hiftory of India: In which is confidered, the prefent Situation of the Eaft, and the Connection of its feveral Powers with the Empire of Great Britain. 4to. 6 s. Boards. Becket. 1779.

H

ISTORICAL abftracts, neceffarily wanting those details which chiefly render hiftory interefting, cannot be properly ranked among works of entertainment. They are, however, of real ufe, both to direct those who are entering on the ftudy of history in the arrangement of facts, and to aflift those who

have made fome progrefs in this study, in reviewing the path they have trodden; a path otherwife too intricate and perplexed to be clearly retraced.-Thefe purposes the prefent Analyfis is very well adapted to answer, with refpect to the modern hiftory of India; the leading facts of which the Author has felected and arranged with judgment.

Towards the clofe of this abftract, we obferve, that a ftrong attachment to the caufe of the Nabob of Arcot, has led the Author to place the events, he relates, in fuch a light as to favour the claims of that prince. But after the long details, which have already been offered to the Public, relative to the dispute between the Nabob of Arcot and the Rajah of Tanjore, we cannot promise our Readers any very material information from what this Writer has advanced on this part of the subject.

As a fpecimen of the work, we fhall give the Author's fentiments on the introduction of the English law into the Eaftern Provinces:

Of all the innovations which have been made by the legislature in the management of the Company's affairs, not one hath been fo loudly exclaimed against as the introduction of the English laws into the Bengal provinces. This, however, we are forry to believe, hath proceeded more from a difappointment of interested views, than from a conviction of any pernicious confequences that they are likely to produce. No man of reafon, and of perfonal knowledge of the manners and cuftoms of Hindostan, can honeftly declare, he believes the English laws improper to be introduced into that country. Prejudice, indeed, may operate powerfully on fome who have been educated in all the principles of Afiatic defpotifm, who have ruled over provinces with an arbitrary fway, and whofe words were law; but to a difpaffionate enquirer, who judges with moderation, and who fees the neceffity of coercion in a country where common juftice hath been trampled under foot, not only by fome of the English themselves, but univerfally by their fervants and dependants, he will unhesitatingly confefs, that the rod of legal authority cannot but be of fervice to with-hold the hand of oppreffion, and to enfure to the honest labourer the fcanty reward of his induftry and trouble. This, it is faid, has never been denied him. But what is more liable to mifreprefentation than an unfettled ftate, where all domi nion, after the confufion of fucceffive revolutions, is transferred to a few ftrangers, and where the conquerors, living under their own laws of freedom, amidst a nation of helplefs and unprotected beings, exhibit a fituation almott without parallel in hiftory?

At the time when the power of the English nation gave effect to ufurpations of the private trader, who decided his own claims, oppreffing the natives, and threatening the officers of government if they prefumed to interfere, the neceffity was foon perceived of confining the free merchants to the refpective prefidences. But this did not eradicate the evil; the fame practices were continued by the fervants of the Company.

L 2

• When