ftate in Great-Britain,, ever fince the conqueft of it, and that no at. tempt has been made to encourage the profeffion of the Proteftant re ligion 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 most frequently appealed to) the inhabitants fometimes plead the English laws. And from thefe circumstances of neglect, confufion, and uncertainty, and likewife from the fmall importance of the subjects upon which the kings of Great-Britain have exercised a legislative authority over thefe places by their orders in council (no 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)we concluded, that neither this island 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.'

From the preceding extract, our Readers will conceive of this Author, that he is not one of thofe flimfy writers who endeavour to gather confequence to themselves, from the confequence of the doctrines or characters they attack; thofe obnoxious infects that buzz about perfons of high station, or diftinguished talents, and are perpetually watching to find some 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 firft) in the year 1722, on a queftion referred to them concerning Jamaica.

Our Author endeavours to fhew, that the opinion of the judges in Calvin's cafe, inftead 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 thofe learned lawyers appear to have bestowed very little attention; and that it muft alfo 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 thofe 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 serve another turn, they are represented paffing an opinion fo highly important to the Crown, with much hafte and little attention. Inattention, and hafte are surely 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 fetting 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 first is that of Sir William Jones, given while he was attorney-general to Charles II. and probably about the year 1677, against the fole legiflative 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. These two learned names are fufficient to redeem the reputation of the Long Robe * in the present instance. We fincerely wish 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 muft beg leave to express 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 started before upon the king's legislative right over a conqueft. It never was denied in Westminster Hall; it never was questioned in parliament." And again, "No book, no faying of a judge, no opinion of any counfel,

The firft mentioned gentlemen ought to have been exempted from the unhandfome infinuation of the Canadian Freeholder. The pernicious union of the political and profeffional characters in our great law officers, was not fo fully established in the reign of George the first, as in the prefent times. The opinions in queftion were delivered by them as lawyers in council, not as ftatesmen and orators in the fenate; in their profesional, 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 raised concerning it." Thefe are ftrangely confident expreffions, confidering the weakness of the proofs he adduces in fupport of them; to which, indeed, they form a remarkable contraft. This, I confels, has surprised me in a man fo much celebrated for his learning and abilities as Lord Mansfield. I therefore wish 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 myfelf, by our difcuffion of this fubject, that the reafons he has adduced in fupport of it, are very weak.'

ENGLISH MAN.

⚫ Your remark is very juft. There is a flrange 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 farprizing 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, reprefents it. But that pofitiveness of affertion is agreeable to his conftant manner of speaking, 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 fabject, and have found them to be infufficient, ought to break through the inchantment, and to yield to the conclusions 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 Mans

field'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 East, and the Connection of its feveral Powers with the Empire of Great Britain. 4to. 6s. Boards. Becket. 1779.

H

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

have made fome progress in this ftudy, in reviewing the path they have trodden; a path otherwife too intricate and perplexed to be clearly retraced.-Thefe purpofes 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 cause 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 difpute 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 fubject.

As a specimen of the work, we fhall give the Author's fentiments on the introduction of the English law into the Eastern 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 Joudly 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 reason, and of perfonal knowledge of the manners and cuftoms of Hindoftan, can honestly 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 necefity 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 honeft labourer the fcanty reward of his industry and trouble. This, it is faid, has never been denied him. But what is more liable to misreprefentation than an unfettled ftate, where all dominion, 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 helpless and unprotected beings, exhibit a fituation almost 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 respective prefidences. But this did not eradicate the evil; the fame practices were continued by the fervants of the Company. • When

L 2

When the rapacity, therefore, of all who affumed the name of English, or of English agents, was let loose upon a harmless and inoffenfive race of men, what incitement could there be to the manufacturer and labourer? To reclaim men from diffipation, to check impatient hopes, where youths afpire to the abfolute government of countries at an age fcarcely adequate to the management of private affairs, to revive a general fpirit of induftry, to lead the minds of all from infatuated illufions of fudden acquired wealth to a patient expectation of growing fortunes, is no lefs difficult in execution, than neceffary to the exiflence of good government. These are positions that, I believe, will be admitted by every candid and difcerning mind; they are conformable to the decrees of unerring juftice.

To fay, that the inhabitants of the ceded provinces of India have been regulated by their own laws, is to advance an affertion which daily experience proves to be untrue. The Indians have never been fheltered by their own laws. Their laws have been derided by their conquerors; nor could any decifion whatever have effect, when oppofed to the merciless hand of rapine and oppreffion. In fhort, whatever may be advanced to the contrary, the introduction of the English laws, we are firmly convinced, will be attended with the best of confequences. No crime whatever is punishable by the Englifh code, that is not equally fo by the Hindoo and Mahometan inftitutions right and wrong, virtue and vice, are the fame to them that they are to other nations. Licentioufnefs, in the midft of anarchy and confufion, may have tolerated there, as in other places, the perpetration of crimes. A fixed government, however, will foon convince them of the advantage of an adherence to what is equitable and juft.

Admitting, in this manner, that the introduction of the Englifh laws into Bengal will, in the end, be advantageous to the natives, by reftraining the oppreffion of the English and their agents, we fhall, for the very fame reafons, advance it as our opinion, that the fame laws fhould be established in the other dominions that are fubjected to the authority of the Company.

The gentle influence of thefe happy ordinances diffufing itself from one extremity to the other of the English territorial poffeffions in the Eaft-Indies, would foon change the face of mifery, which the inhabitants at prefent wear, to that of cheerfulnefs and content.

Is the improvement in the circumstances of the lower rank of people to be regarded as an advantage, or as an inconvenience to the fociety? The answer is at first fight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every political fociety. What, therefore, improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No fociety can furely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miferable. It is but equity befides, that they who feed, cloath, and lodge the whole body of the people, fhould have fuch a share of the produce of their own labour, as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed, and lodged.'

There