by which, to encourage the settling of the island, the Governor or Commander-in-Chief was authorized under the broad seal of the island, to make aliens 66 being already settled, or such as shall hereafter come to settle and plant in it, having first taken the oath of allegiance, to be to all intents and purposes fully and completely naturalized." The application of the four last words is shewn by another section, which declares that such persons "shall have and enjoy, to them and their heirs, the same immunities and rights of and unto the law and privileges of this island, in as full and ample a manner as any of His Majesty's natural born subjects." A similar act was passed by the Assembly of Antigua in 1702, and confirmed at home May 8th, 1703. That act declared that Protestant aliens desiring to become inhabitants, should be brought before the Governor and Council, and having taken certain oaths and acquired ten acres of freehold land · in the country, or a house in any town in Antigua, might acquire and dispose of all kinds of property in the island as if they were natives. In addition to these local acts, the English statutes 13 Geo. 2, c. 7, and 2 Geo. 3, c. 25, made similar provisions as to the naturalization of foreigners in " any British Colony in America," and the 13 Geo. 3, c. 25, declared that all persons becoming His Majesty's born subjects, by virtue of the two preceding acts, might hold places of trust and take grants of land from the crown, such not being places of trust or grants of land within the United Kingdom. The act of 1 Wm. 4, c. 53, passed with respect to Lower Canada, enabled foreigners who have been naturalized by the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada to vote for members of the Assembly, and to be summoned or elected to seats in it. It was therefore clear that the law had formally recognized the authority of Colonial Governments to grant this limited species of naturalization, and the person improperly sent out of the Colony was allowed to return. As the opportunity of inserting this matter in the body of the work, as part of the account of the powers of a Governor, had passed by, I thought its introduction in this place might be pardoned, as it seemed too important to be altogether omitted. 2, PUMP COURT, TEMPLE, Sept. 5th, 1834. CHARLES CLARK. ERRATA. Page 24, line 18, for 57 Geo. 3, read 1 Wm. 4. Page 313, line 8 from the bottom, add “ and also to the Orders in Council, ante, 274 and 288." SUMMARY OF COLONIAL LAW. THE British Colonies or Plantations are remote possessions or provinces of this realm, occupied for the purposes of trade or cultivation.(1) (1) Mr. Reeves observes (on Shipping, pt. ii. c. 1, p. 104,) that "plantation originally implied the idea of introducing, instituting, and establishing, where every thing was desert before," but that colony and plantation now seem to mean the same thing, though formerly a plantation was not a colony till the King had appointed a governor or civil establishment. It was according to this modern use of the two words that Guadaloupe, taken from the French in 1759, was held by Attorney-General Pratt and SolicitorGeneral Yorke to be a plantation within the meaning of the Act of Navigation. The latter, however, called it "a plantation or territory belonging to the King by conquest." 2 Cha. Op. 357; and see Wytham v. Dutton, 3 Mod. 161, where, in a question respecting Barbadoes, which was found a desert island and planted by Bristish subjects, "islands gotten by conquest, or by some of the King's subjects going in search of prize, and planting themselves there," are spoken of arguendo as convertible ideas. Doc. tor Johnson defines "colony" to be "a body of people drawn from the mother country to inhabit some distant place." But the term is of more comprehensive sense in the English law, in which territory ra. ther than people is the predominating idea. In a legal sense, it seems a necessary part of the definition that a territory should be a possession of the realm, or part of his Majesty's dominions. This is not the case with every settlement, for in some, British subjects may only have rights of occupation. Thus by treaty of peace with Spain in 1763, it was agreed by the King of Spain that British subjects should not be dis B It is proposed in the following pages to consider, I. The laws to which, in a general view, the colonies are subject. turbed in cutting logwood at the Bay of Honduras, but should be allowed to occupy houses and magazines there. A question arose whether the Bay of Honduras thereby became a territory belonging to his Majesty within the Navigation Act, and it would seem, that on the principle laid down by Mr. Reeves, it was held not to be so. (Chitty on Commerce, vol. i. p. 636.) It has been thought that the term "colony" is not in law applicable to a mere military possession, and the case of Lubbock v. Potts, (7 East, 449,) exhibits an instance in which that doctrine of exclusion has been applied to Gibraltar. Yet if the definition of Dr. Johnson, or the fact of possession of territory, were alone to give the rule, that place ought fairly to be ranked among our colonies. Besides, in Lubbock v. Potts the question was not on the word "colony," but "plantation." That case, therefore, even if well decided, would hardly support the opinion for which it is quoted. Lord Ellenborough described Gibraltar as "a mere fortress and garrison, incapa. ble of raising produce, but supplied with it from other places." Previous legal authorities had not considered Gibraltar in the same light. If it were "a mere fortress and garrison," there could be no objec. tion to its remaining under martial law, yet so early as 1722, there was a petition to the Crown supported by the members for the City of London, praying that a civil juris diction might be established there, and complaining on the part of the merchants and traders of the town, that notwithstanding letters-patent had been granted by the Crown for the establishment of a civil, they were still under a military government. (1 Chal. Op. 169.) Among the papers submitted by the Privy Council to the Attorney and Solicitor-General, (Raymond and Yorke,) was one stating, that at the time Gibraltar was taken it contained "" one nunnery, two convents," some other establishments of the same kind, and "1000 families." (The population is now, exclusive of troops, 16,500.-M'Culloch's Dict. of Com. art. Gibraltar.) The petitioners expressly asked for a civil government to be established there "as in the American colonies," and the Attorney and Solicitor-General reported in favour of the request. In the Charter of Justice, dated in 1817, the letters-patent of Geo. 1 and Geo. 2 are both recited as having been issued to establish courts of justice in "the town and territory of Gibraltar;" and the expression "town and territory" was also used in the opinion of the two learned persons above referred to, who recommend that "some settlement ought to be made of the property in the houses and lands there." In Campbell v. Hall, Lord Mansfield says, (Cowp. 211,) "there are inhabitants, property, and trade in Gibraltar." That place had therefore before the period II. The particular legal constitutions at present prevailing in them. III. Such acts of the British Parliament as impose regulations on the colonies. IV. Some miscellaneous points of English law upon matters relating to the colonies. the colonies are subject. I. In its colonial possessions, the crown possesses Laws to which the same right of sovereignty, and (in general) the same prerogative as in the mother country.(2) The political and military administration is consequently vested in a governor, appointed by the king; and the laws are administered and executed in the king's name by the same functionary, and by other executive and judicial officers acting under the crown.(3) when Lubbock v. Potts was decided, been treated both by the Crown and by the highest legal authorities as something beyond "a mere fortress and garrison;" and the true reason for the judgment given in that case is perhaps rather to be found in the statement there made, that "in fact the term plantation, in the sense of the navigation laws, had never been applied to any of the British dominions in Europe" than in any other circumstance. The same cause has probably operated to keep Jersey, Guernsey, and (since the 41 Geo. 3) Malta, in the anomalous situation of" British possessions in Europe," that is, in a state in which, with regard to trade, they are considered in one character, and with regard to legal government in another. They have not the benefit of a direct trade with the East and West Indian colonies; but appeals lie from them as from those colonies to the King in council. (Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowp. (2) "The prerogative in the ibid. 203. (3) The case of proprietary and that of charter governments, (to be afterwards noticed,) are so far exceptions to this, that the governors and other officers are appointed not by the crown, but by those to whom |