« PreviousContinue »
And think that thou waft mine ; and if I wept
What of him?
I cannot tell thee;
Canft thou not guess and spare thy father ?
Tell me the worst while I have sense to hear.
Thou wilt not speak-nay never turn away;
But fear runs wild with horrible conjecture.
EMMELINA ( After a long pause.) 'Tis well—'tis very well-'is as it should be. Guild. Oh, there's an eloquence in that mute woe,
Which mocks all language. Speak, relieve thy heart,
Wbile not a figh escapes to tell thy pain.
GUILDFORD. (Embraces her.)
Same dread convulsion fatal to thy peace.
Methinks thy daughier shou'd not be refus'd ?
Held up to fale? been offer'd, and refus'd ?
To spare thy blushes met the Count-
No more :
No flowers of rhetoric, no arts of speech
Can change the fact-Orlando has refus'd me. Guild. He shall repent
Think no more on't:
I think I could have borne it.
Thou hast a brother ;
First strike me dead!
And tremble to become a childless facher. Before the tragedy are printed a poetical prologue written by the fair Authorels, and a humorous epilogue by Mr. Sheridan.
Art, X. The Canadian Freeholder. Vol. II. Concluded. See
Review for September Jalt, p. 171; where the Tiile, ar lengih, is ricited; and which ought to be reperused, so alījt the recollection of our Readers.
E have seen, in the course of this volume, that the general principles or
on which the king's legislative authority over conquered countries is aflerted by Lori Mansfield, are either destructive of the very purpose they were produced to serve, or fall extremely short of the point they were intended to establich. When reason fails, or is silent, recourse mult next be had to authority, and to precedents. The testimony of history is accordingly brought forward by Lord Mansfeld, to shew, that the Crown has, in numerous instances, actually exercised this fupposed authority. His instances are drawn from Ireland, Wales, Berwick upon Tweed, Galcony, Calais, New York, Jamaica, Gibraltar, and Minorca. The exertion of a legislative power, and the exercise of a legislative right, are by no means synonymous terms. History may attest the one,
but fomething more than history ought to prove the other. At the same time, it must be confeffed, that the practice of past ages is, in general, a safe rule to guide the judgment of the present. It vouches the opinion of men who had access to more information than we can be poffeffed of; and though we do not take their word for the justness of a conclufion, when the premises are as open to us as they were to them, yet we may reasonably suppose, that as they were placed nearer the fountain, they were acquainted with many facts, many evidences of the right, which are now sunk in the stream of time, or have been washed away by the length of its course. Our Author owns, very candidly, that if the arguments from history in favour of this legislative authority of the Crown, ' are clear, and positive, and uniform,' they must have great weight; but he is of opinion, that in the prefent case, none can be alleged which poffefs these qualities, and that those mentioned by Lord Mansfield are entitled to very little regard. We shall pot pretend to follow him in this part of his subject. It would carry us far beyond the limits of our plan. Such of our readers as are inclined to consult his very accurate historical detail, will find themselves abundantly rewarded by much curious and valuable information. We shall content ourselves with giving, the recapitulation of the principal heads of his argument, in the words of one of his dialogists.
• With respect to Ireland we observed, that he argued, from King John's having, by his fole authoriiy, introduced the laws of England into Ireland, that he therefore was the fole legiilator of it; which we agreed to be by no means a jult conclusion, there being a manifeft difference between a power in the conquering king to introduce, orce for all, immediately after the conquert, into the conquiso cd country the laws of the conquering country, and the regular, pera manent, législative authority by which the laws of the conquered country may, at any time after, be changed at the pleasure of the legislators, (whoever they are,) not only by introducing into it the Jaws of the conquering nation, but any other laws whatsoever, and this as often, and in as great a degree, as the legislators shall think fit. And we further observed, that Lord Coke, in the passage quoted from this report of Calvin's cale, has expressly declared that the kings of England were not possessed of this permanent legislative aus thority over'Ireland, not having a right to alter the laws of England, (when once introduced there by King John,) without consent of par. liament; and that Lord Mansfield bas adopted this opinion of Lord Coke, though it clathes with the conclusion which he laboured to draw from this case of Ireland in favour of the king's sole legislative power in the island of Grenada. And we further observed that, for fome centuries past, at least, the laws which have been made for the government of Ireland have been made either with the consent of the parliament of England, or with that of the parliament of Ireland, So that, upon the whole matter, Ireland appears to be a very unfit example, of the exercise of fach a fole legislative authority in the 3
Crown over a conquered country, as Lord Mansfield asserted to have belonged to it in the case of the island of Grenada before the publication of the royal proclamation of Oktober, 1763. Thele, I think, are the principal remarks we agreed upon concerning Ireland.
With respect to Wales, it appeared to us, that Lord Mansfield had miltaken two very material facts relacing to it. For, in the first place, he asserted that shat country had not been a fief of the crown of England before its complete reduction by King Edward the Ift, no:withitanding King Edward, in the famous Statutum Wallic, pasied immediately after the reduction of it, expressly declares that it had been fo, and notwi: hitanding a cloud of passages in that venerable old hiflorian, Matthew Paris, (who lived in the reign of King Henry the Illd, King Edward's father) which prove, that it was in such a face of feudal subjection to the crown of England throughout all the reign of King Henry the IIId, and for several reigns before. But, in opposition to these decisive testimonies, Lord Mansfield will have it that Wales had never been a fief of the crown of England before the reduction of it by King Edward, but was then, for the first time, reduced by his victorious arms, to be a dependent dominion of the crown of England; but that, for some reasons of policy (which, however, Lord Mansfield does not state, nor even hint ai) King Edward thought proper to declare it to have been in a state of feudai fubje&ion to the crown before his conqueft of it. And here we observed, that Lord Mansfield reasoned inconclusively, even from his own assumed state of the fact. For, if Wales had not been a fief of the crown of England before King Edward's reduction of it, but had been (as Lord Mansfield fupposes) an absolutely independant ftate until that time, yet, if King Edward had, for any reasons of policy, thought fit to confider it (though falsely) as having been before in a state of feudal subjection to the crown, such a plan of policy in King Edward would have rendered Wales an unfit example of the exercise of the power of a king of England over a conquered country; because it must be suppoled that King Edward would, in such a case, have exercised only such rights of government over it as were compatible with the political situation in which he would have thought fit to place it, which would have been that of an ancient fief of the crown reduced into possession. And we observed also, that he had misconceived another material fact relating to this country, with respect to the power by which laws were made for the government of it after its reduction by King Edward. For he asierts, that King Edward made laws for it by his own single authority, notwithstanding it is expressly declared by that king himself, in the preamble of his famous Statutum Walliæ, above-mentioned, that the laws he then eitablished for the government of it were made de confilio procerum Tegni noftri, or by the consent of his parliament.
* These mistakes we observed to have been made by Lord Manse field in what he said concerning those two great examples of Ireland and Wales; which are also of too great antiquity to have much weight in determining a question concerning the constitution of the English government at this day.
• We then observed that all the other instances that were mentioned by him, except those of Gibraltar and Minorca, are of no import
ance to the question. These instances were the town of Berwick upon Tweed, the dutchy of Guieone, or Gascony, the town of Calais in France, the province of New-York in North America, and the island of Jamaica
• All that he says of Berwick upon Tweed is, that it was governed by a royal charier. But that circumstance is no proof that the king was the sole legislator of it, any more than he is of the cities of York, Bristol, Execer, and twenty other towns in England, which are governed also by royal charters, And even that charter of Berwick appears to have been confirmed by act of parliament in the reign of King James the First.
As to the dutchy of Gaienne, or Gascony, and the town of Calais in France, they were not acquired by the kings of England by conquest, but by marriage and inheritance, and consequently can afford no example of the power of the Crown over conquered countries.
• And the province of New York in America is an unfit example for this purpose, because, though perhaps in truth it might be a mere conqueft made upon the Dutch in the year 1664, after they had been many years in quiet poflesion of it, yet it was not fo confidered by King Charles the Second, who took it from them, but was claimed and seized upon by his order, as a part of the territory of the more ancient English colony of New England, into which, it was pretended, the Dutch had intruded themselves without the permillion of the Crown. And, upon this ground of an already-exift. ing right to it in the crown of England, it was granted away by King Charles the Second to his brother, the Duke of York, before ever the fleet, which was sent to take possesion of it, had failed from England; and it was taken possession of by Colonel Nicholls, as a part of the king's old dominions, before the king entered into the first Dutch war. As, therefore, it was not considered by the Crown as a conquered country, the government elablished in it cannot be justly cited as an example of the authority of the Crown over conquered countries.- And nearly the same thing may be said of the island of Jamaica; lince Lord Mansfield tells us, that he had found, upon inquiring into the history of it, that it had been almost intirely abandoned by the Spanish inhabitants of it soon after its conquest by the arms of England in the year 1655, in the time of Cromwell's ufurpation, and that it was occupied only by English fettlers at, or soon after, the restoration of King Charles the Second in 1660; insomuch that it had been considered ever since chat period as an English plantation, and not as a conquered country. For, if this be true (as I do not doubt it is,) it renders this isand an unfit example of the exercise of the legislative authority of the Crown over conquered countries. I mean only, however, that it is not a direct example for this purpose: for indireally, I acknowledge, both this isand and the province of New-York may be used as arguments in favour of this authority, by reasoning as follows. “ The power of the Crown over a conquered country must be at least as great as it is over a planted country, or colony. Therefore, ince the king of England exercised legislative authority over the island of Jamaica for about twenty years, without the concurrence of either the Englith parliament or