lations for the administration of justice in the provinces subject to the presidency of Fort William was introduced. The Regulations for Madras and Bombay are likewise framed into separate codes and printed. c. 155. Appeals lie from the inferior native courts to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut,* and from thence to the King in Council, in civil suits, the value of which shall be £5,000, or upwards. By the act of 1813, British subjects in suits commenced 53 Geo. 3, against them in any subordinate civil or revenue court of justice, instead of appealing to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, may appeal to the Supreme Court. Appeals lie from the Supreme Courts of Judicature to the King in Council. No appeal is to be allowed unless the petition for that purpose is preferred within six months from the day of pronouncing the judgment or determination complained of. In appeals from Bengal and Madras, the value of the matter in dispute must exceed 1,000 pagodas; and from Bombay, 3,000 rupees. It has already been observed that, by the act of 1773, the Governor-General and Council are empowered to make such regulations as they shall see fit for the government of FortWilliam, and the factories and places subordinate to it, such regulations not being repugnant to the laws of the realm; neither are they to have any force or effect until they have been duly registered and published in the Supreme Court of Judicature. From such rules and regulations an appeal lies to his Majesty in Council, who is empowered to set aside or repeal such rules, &c. Notice of the appeal is to be lodged in the Supreme Court within sixty days after the register of the regulation; and it is open to any person in England to appeal, in like manner, within sixty days after the said regulation shall have been published in England. Copies of such rules and regulations are to be exposed in some conspicuous place in the East-India House. A case occurred on the 13th February 1824, when Mr. Buckingham, the appellant, presented a petition to his Majesty in Council against a rule, regulation, and ordinance, issued at Fort William on the 4th April 1823, for regulating the press at Calcutta. The appeal was argued at great length on Monday, the 23d May 1825, before a Commission of the Lords of the Privy Council, consisting of The Earl of Harrowby, Lord President; The Lord Chancellor, Lord Teignmouth, Lord Colchester, Lord Stowell, Lord Bexley, Lord Gifford, Master of the Rolls, The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, The Right Hon. C. W. W. Wynne, The Right Hon. Sir John Nicoll, The Right Hon. John Beckett, Judge-Advocate, The Right Hon. John Sulivan, The Right Hon. Sir Henry Russell, The Right Hon. W. H. Freemantle, The Right Hon. Sir George Warrender, Bart. Assessors to the Lords' Committee, His Majesty's Attorney-General, His Majesty's Solicitor-General. Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Common Serjeant, Mr. John Williams. Counsel for the East-India Company, Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet, Mr. Serjeant Spankie, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Tindal. The following is an extract from the arguments urged by Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet in support of the ordinance : My Lords, is it argued (for that is the way to try it) "that the subject which has been considered as a fit sub 66 ject of legislation in India (the press), has, by the Parlia "ment "ment of England, by any public law, been declared to be "free and unrestricted, and not a fit subject for legislation "even in England? I can find nothing of the kind; but I "can find that, from the earliest time since printing was "introduced into this country down to the latest period, "restrictions have been imposed by the authorities which for "the time were supposed to have a control over it, without "the aid of Parliament, and subsequently by the Parliament "itself; therefore, as I apprehend, it has been considered in "this country as a subject not wholly exempted from restric❝tion. I need not call your Lordships' attention to the state "of things at an early period, especially in the reign of Eliza"beth-perhaps it might be said that those restrictions were "imposed by a court, the authority of which is no longer "admitted; but they were enforced by a court supposed to "have the controlling power at that time over the subject; " and when the power of that court ceased, the regulations imposed by the Commonwealth were certainly as strict, in "all respects, as any thing that is to be found among the "restrictions of the preceding reigns, or is now sought to be "introduced with respect to India. The same power of licensing every species of work, the same power of search, "and every strict power which your Lordships could well imagine, you will find in the various regulations in Scobell. “It would be a waste of your Lordships' time to refer to them, "particularly as you are well acquainted with them; they 66 occur among the ordinances for the years 1643, 1647, 1649, " and 1652, in which periods regulations were made, certainly by authority, which we no longer recognize, because it was during the Commonwealth; but no sooner did the Restora“tion take place, than you find that all the regulations com 66 66 66 66 66 66 prehended in those ordinances were adopted by a statute "of Charles II, which statute was in force for a considerable "length of time. That statute expired, and was again revived, " and there were many discussions respecting the renewal of "it; but it was at length suffered to expire, as we all know, "in the year 1697, or somewhere thereabouts. "But give me leave to ask, my Lords-independently "of the regulations of comparatively an ancient date, whether "there с 3 "there are not subsisting at this moment, consistent with "the law of England, restrictions upon printing, of a very "high and important nature-limited, it is true, with re"spect to their particular subjects, but just as much the "law of the land as if they extended to any other matters? "We all know what are called prerogative copies; we "know that translations of the Bible, that translations of the "Psalms, that the Book of Common Prayer, the Statutes "of the realm, proclamations, and other acts of the state"that none of these can be printed but under the license "of his Majesty; we know that the King's printer and the "Universities have that privilege; and we also know that "there are restrictions imposed by recent statutes* upon "printing and printing presses, extending to other subjects "besides those which I have particularly mentioned. Those, "my Lords, are restrictions imposed by the law, because such "regulations have been found necessary, and were thought applicable to the particular exigencies which occasioned "them." 66 Mr. Serjeant Spankie, in support of the power of the Bengal Government to make such regulation, made the following remarks: 66 "I have found instances in which, by his Majesty's prero"gative, colonial acts have been disallowed, sometimes as being unreasonable, and sometimes for encroaching on the "royal authority; but I find no objection made to the "legal competence to enact those regulations which were "necessary for the safety and protection of the colony, in "matters, and some of a very high nature, where the law "of England furnished none, or inadequate remedies; the "examples of colonial legislation on which, under the advice "of its law officers in the particular instances, and not pass❝ing sub silentio, are extremely various, comprehending the "subjects already specified, and indeed a great variety of "others. Some are rather curious. I recollect a case+ from "the island of Barbadoes, in which the legislature had gone 38 Geo. III, c. 78, and 39 Geo. III, c. 79. † 2 Chalmers, 38, 39. 66 so far as to enact, that if any person should bid at any "auction for an estate, being unable to pay for it, he should "be imprisoned for twelve months; that at the expiration "of the term of his imprisonment he should stand in the "pillory, and have his ears cut off. This is pretty strong; "and certainly the law of England had no corresponding "provision for such a case. Sir Edward Northey, the attor"ney-general of that time (1717), was consulted about this "and other acts of the Assembly of Barbadoes. He notices "this act, as imposing, what he calls, rather a singular, and 66 severe punishment, for the offence of bidding at an auction "without having money to pay for the goods; but,' con"cludes he, as this punishment is only for those who know "their own inability, I have no objection to it.'" 66 "This instance may serve, and many similar might be "adduced, to shew that the meaning of the qualification not "being repugnant to the laws of England is, that laws to be "made by the colonial legislatures shall not contradict the "laws of England in cases for which the law of England has "provided, for that would be a power to repeal the laws of England. They shall not introduce any thing so absurd "as a conflictus legum, by the inferior legislature enacting any thing contrary to what the supreme legislature has "enacted in the same matter. They shall not enact any "thing that is contradictory and repugnant to the general "laws and statutes of the realm, meant for universal appli"cation, and founded on principles of permanent imperial "policy. But where the law of England is silent, where "local circumstances demand local remedies, where the ends "of good order and civil government require new laws, the "local legislative power is competent to enact such laws for "the public safety, and the legislative authority was granted "to afford a prompt and present remedy in unforeseen cases, "for which the laws of England had not provided." The following extracts are also given from the arguments of the learned Serjeant before the Privy Council, and they are entitled to every consideration from the fact of Mr. Serjeant Spankie having resided some years at Calcutta, filling the high office of Advocate-General, consequently fully qua |