sons convicted of high treason depends, is this: Whether the Act of Parliament, 1 Mar. c. 6, entitled "An Act that the counterfeiting of strange coins (being current within this realm), the Queen's sign-manual or privy seal, to be adjudged treason,” extends to Nova Scotia, and is in force there, with respect to the counterfeiting Spanish dollars and pistareens in the said province ?

And we are of opinion, first, that it doth not; for that the Act is expressly restrained to the counterfeiting of foreign coin current within this realm, of which Nova Scotia is no part.

Secondly, we are of opinion that the proposition adopted by the Judges there, that the inhabitants of the colonies carry with them the statute laws of this realm, is not true, as a general proposition, but depends upon circumstances: the effect of their Charterusage-and Acts of their Legislature; and it would be both inconvenient and dangerous to take it in so large an extent.

And thirdly, we are of opinion that the offence can only be considered as a high misdemeanor, unless there are any provisions in any charter granted to that province, which make it a greater offence, to which we are entirely strangers.

May 18, 1757.

R. HENLEY.

C. YORKE.

(5.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR WILLIAM DE GREY and SIR EDWARD WILLES, on the extension of Acts of Parliament to the Colonies, when they are mentioned generally, as dominions of the Crown. 1767.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,-In obedience to your Lordships' commands, signified to us by Mr. Pownall's letter of the 12th of June, that we would take into our consideration an Act of Parliament, passed in the 12th of Queen Ann., stat. 2, c. 18, entitled," An Act for the preserving of all such ships and goods thereof which shall happen to be forced on shore upon the coasts of this kingdom or any other of Her Majesty's dominions;" also, one other Act of Parliament passed the 4th of Geo. 1, c. 12, entitled "An Act for enforcing and making perpetual an Act of the 12th year of her late Majesty, entitled 'An Act for preserving all such ships and goods thereof as shall happen to be forced on shore or stranded upon the coasts of this kingdom or any other of His

Majesty's dominions,' and for inflicting the punishment of death on such as shall wilfully burn and destroy ships;" and that we would give our opinion whether the said Acts do extend to, and are in force in, his Majesty's colonies and plantations in America ; we have taken the same into our consideration, and are of opinion that as the title of the Act of the 12th of Ann. stat. 2, c. 18, expressly imports to be "An Act for preserving ships and goods thereof forced on shore, or stranded upon the coasts of this kingdom or any other of Her Majesty's dominions," and the enacting part has words extending to her Majesty's dominions in general, the said Act of the 12th of Ann. extends to and is in force in his Majesty's colonies and plantations in America, notwithstanding the special promulgation of the law; and some other provisions in it are applicable only to this kingdom.

We are likewise of opinion that so much of the Act of 4th Geo. 1, c. 12, as declares the 12th of Ann. to be perpetual, extends to America. But the third clause of that Act, which introduces a new crime, by a provision altogether independent of the former part of the Act, and made to render an Act of the 1st of Ann. more effectual, we are inclined to think, does not extend to his Majesty's colonies and plantations in America, that clause being expressed in general terms, without any reference to the colonies; and the 11th of Geo. 1, c. 29, s. 7, which directs the mode of prosecution of those offences, when committed within the body of any county of this realm, or upon the high seas, making no mention of the manner of trial, if such offences should be committed in any of his Majesty's plantations or colonies in America.

June 25, 1767.

W. DE GREY.
E. WILLES.

(6.) JOINT OPINION of the King's Advocate, SIR CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR WILLIAM GARROW and SIR SAMUEL SHEPHERD, as to the powers of Government vested in the Crown with respect to the Colony of Berbice. 1817.

MY LORD, We are honoured with your Lordship's commands of the 27th ultimo, transmitting the charter of the colony of Berbice, being the conditions on which their High Mightinesses the

States-General have granted permission to the Directors of the colony of Berbice to open a free trade and navigation to the said colony for all the inhabitants of the United Netherlands; as also to deliver lands already cultivated or not on equitable terms.

And your Lordship is pleased to request that we would take the same into consideration, and report to your Lordship our opinion, whether his Royal Highness having found it necessary to dismiss the members of the present Council of Government, it is competent to his Royal Highness to direct, by an Order in Council, the manner in which another Council of Government should be formed, or whether his Royal Highness is still bound to require the late members to furnish names of other persons from which to make an election of their successors; calling our attention to the circumstance that the Berbice Association (the former directors of the colony) having been abolished previous to the surrender of the colony to his Majesty's arms, and the whole power of the directors having been at that time vested in the Government of Holland, his Royal Highness has since exercised in the colony authority both of the States-General and of the directors of the colony; and further calling our attention to the additional regulations laid down by the States-General in their resolve of the year 1780, altering in certain particulars the original charter under which the colony was established.

In obedience to your Lordship's directions, we have considered the same, and, adverting to the charter and the capitulation, we are of opinion that the full powers of Government are vested in the Crown by the conquest, and that his Royal Highness the Prince Regent having found it necessary to dismiss the present Council, the members so discharged would not be entitled to nominate their successors, as the 21st Article of the Charter, if it is adopted as the rule of Government, would not be applicable to such a case.

The original mode of nomination might be used if it was deemed expedient, but we are of opinion that it would not be obligatory, and that his Royal Highness the Prince Regent might direct by Order in Council the manner in which another Council of Government should be formed.

C. ROBINSON.

Doctors' Commons, April 22, 1817.

W. GARROW.

S. SHEPHERD.

(7.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR JAMES SCARLETT and SIR N. C. TINDAL, on certain inquisitorial powers claimed by the House of Assembly in Antigua. 1828.

We presume we are not called upon to consider the abstract question how far a Legislative Assembly in the colonies, without any original power given to them by their charter, or any course of usage and practice to support it, can exercise such inquisitorial powers, and enforce them by such means as are within the undisputed privilege of the English House of Commons. But conceiving the fact to be, that some analogous powers have been recognised in practice in the island of Antigua, and may be in certain cases essential for the purposes of legislation, we think it would not be expedient, on an occasion like the present, to call them in question. And we see no reason why the Attorney General of the island should refuse his attendance at the bar of the House of Assembly, or should decline answering any questions put to him, excepting such as may occasion disclosures which it would be inconsistent with the duty of his office to make, or which may have a tendency to criminate himself. It appears, however, to be unnecessary to dwell more largely on these grounds of exception, as the House of Assembly have by their 5th and 6th Resolutions expressly disclaimed their intention of breaking in upon either.

In case it should be thought necessary, upon grounds which may have occurred in the island, but which we do not comprehend, to bring the question to a judicial determination, the proper course will be by an action of trespass against the party who makes the arrest under the Speaker's warrant; in which case the powers of the House, both in general and as applied to the particular instance, be discussed and determined on an appeal to the King in Council, the facts of the case being set out either upon a special verdict or a Bill of Exceptions.

may

Temple, January 21, 1828.

J. SCARLETT.

N. C. TINDAL.

(8.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR WILLIAM HORNE and SIR JOHN CAMPBELL, as to provisions of Charter of Justice not being at variance with Terms of Capitulation in the Mauritius. 1833.

MY LORD,-We beg to acknowledge the receipt from your Lordship of the draft of an intended charter for the better administration of justice in the Mauritius, which you have been pleased to transmit to us for our revision, together with a letter stating the circumstances which have determined his Majesty's Government to the adoption of such a measure. In answer thereto, we have the honour to state that we have revised the draft according to your Lordship's desire, and that we do not see any reason for altering its form or the terms of its several provisions, which we presume to be in their scope and object conformable to the intention of Government, and not to be at variance with the capitulation or treaty by which his Majesty acquired the sovereignty of that island with reference to the power of altering its laws.

Lincoln's Inn, March 26, 1833.

W. HORNE.

J. CAMPBELL.

(9.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR JOHN CAMPBELL and SIR R. M. ROLFE, as to sealing of writs issued for election of House of Assembly in Newfoundland.

1837.

MY LORD, We have to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 14th instant, together with a case prepared by the Attorney General of the island of Newfoundland for the purpose of obtaining our opinion on the following points :

1st. In case it shall be found that all the writs issued in 1832, under which the members of the House of Assembly in the island were elected and sate during all the sessions of the first General Assembly, were issued without seals, whether the Acts of the Legislature are to be deemed consequently void?

2nd. In case it should be found that two only of the fifteen