leave to submit to your Lordships' consideration, is, that all prosecutions now depending are by this act entirely quashed and discharged. What consequence this may have to the public peace in the colony, I cannot tell; but surely many inconveniences will arise by discharging these prosecutions, which I must suppose just, and not trivial and inconsiderable, since they have been carried on by the attorney-general, against whom there is no complaint; which, with submission, supposing there was any ground for the accusation, would be the most proper and decent way of proceeding, rather than to attempt the restraining the prerogative of the Crown, in so material a part of it.

The imposing a fine upon the attorney-general, if he does not pursue the directions of this act, is, I apprehend, an unprecedented step, and a high reflection upon the honour of the Crown; for can it be supposed his Majesty will appoint an attorney-general, who is so unwilling to do his duty, that he must, by the fear and dread of punishment, be forced to put those laws in execution, which he ought strictly by his employment to be supposed, not only to observe himself, but to see a due aud strict observance of by others? For these reasons, I am humbly of opinion this act ought to be repealed.

June 5, 1728.

FRAN. FANE.

(21.) The opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, Yorke and 1abot, on the same subject.

To the Right Hon. the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations.

May it please your Lordships;

In obedience to your Lordships commands, signified

to us by Mr. Popple, referring to us an act passed at New York in 1727, entitled, "an act for preventing prosecutions by informations," and directing us to give our opinion in point of law thereupon; we have considered the said act, and also the memorial of his Majesty's attorney-general of New York, hereunto annexed; and are of opinion, that the said act is a high encroachment upon his Majesty's undoubted prerogative of proceeding by way of information, and of dangerous consequence, and therefore not fit to be approved. August 13, 1728.

P. YORKE.

C. TALBOT.

(22.) The opinion of the Attorney-General Northey, concerning the proceedings in the courts of New York, on an escheat, and an appeal therefrom.

As to these proceedings depending on the writ of escheat, on the death of Joseph Baker, which now stands on a demurrer, and not determined; I am of opinion that depends on his will, for if he hath sufficiently described the devisees, so as they may be known, they shall take thereby, and prevent the escheat of his houses to the Crown. The pleading of Howard to the scire facias is certainly ill, but that will not hurt the devisees, when they contend their title. If the judgment that shall be given be not liked, error on it will lie before the governor and council; and from him, before her Majesty

in council.

July 30, 1713.

EDW. NORTHEY.

(23.) The opinion of the Attorney-General Northey, on the evidence of free negroes.

To the Right Hon. the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations.

May it please your Lordships;

In obedience to your Lordships' commands, signified to me by Mr. Popple, I have considered of the enclosed act, passed at Jamaica the 10th day of November last, entitled "an act to prevent negroes being evidence, against Dorothy, the wife, and John, Thomas, and Francis, sons of John Williams, a free negro," whereby, reciting a former act of the like nature, made in favor of the said John Williams, the father, and that the said John Williams had educated his said sons in the protestant religion, and had given them suitable education, and that he had obtained by his labor and industry, a competency for his said wife and three sons; which, with their lives, might after be subject to the evidence of negroes, and other infidels, it was enacted that no negro, Indian, or mulatto, should thereafter be allowed, or received to give evidence against his said wife and children, in any suit or suits in any court whatsoever, or before any magistrate in that island, but that they should be tried by a jury of twelve men, as other subjects of Great Britain are tried there; and I do most humbly certify your Lordships, that by the annexed affidavit of Francis Oldfield, it does appear that the said John Williams, his wife and children, have all been baptised in the christian faith, and do all profess the protestant religion, and that by reason of the fidelity and integrity of the said John Williams the father, he obtained his freedom several years ago, and his said wife and children are also free from slavery, and that the reason of making this law is, for that by a law of Jamaica, entitled "an act for the better order and government of slaves," the evidence of one slave against another, that is or has been a slave, is admitted to be good and sufficient proof;

and such slaves, or persons that have been slaves, are to be tried by three freeholders, before two justices of the peace, and such slaves are not admitted to be evidence against any other: and I have no objection against this law, for that it is reasonable that a slave converted to the christian religion, being made free, should be admitted to the same privileges with other free men, and, that therefore, this law is proper to be approved by his Majesty.

April 16, 1717.

EDW. NORTHEY.

Fifthly. Of the Admiralty Jurisdiction.

(1.) The opinion of the Attorney-General Northey in 1702, on the Admiralty Jurisdiction, in the Colonics.

The board of trade, doubtful of the true jurisdiction of the admiralty, on the 14th of July, 1702, sent quæries to the attorney and advocate-general for their opinions; whether the courts of admiralty in the plantations, by virtue of the 7th and 8th of King William, or any other act, have there any further jurisdiction than is exercised in England? If the courts of admiralty in the plantations can take cognizance of questions which arise concerning the importation or exportation of any goods to or from them, or of frauds in matters of trade? And in case a vessel sail up any river with prohibited goods, intended for the use of the inhabitants, whether the informer may choose in what court he will prosecute, in the courts of admiralty or of common law? Prop. p. 129.

Sir John Cooke, the advocate-general, pleaded for the jurisdiction of the admiralty, with that anxiety which the civilians have always shewn for the extension of their favorite jurisdiction.

2011

As to the quaries relating to the admiralty courts in the plantations, sent to the advocate-general and myself by Mr. Popple, pursuant to your Lordships' commands, I have considered of the same; and as to the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts in England and the platantions, touching offences committed against the laws made relating to the plantations, which are enumerated in the beginning of the act made in the 7th and 8th of the late King William, mentioned in the queries, I am of opinion, that for offences against the act of the 12th Car. II. ch. 18. for encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation, by that act, the admiralty courts in the colonies have no jurisdiction; and the admiralty court in England, hath jurisdiction only where a ship is taken at sea for offending against that act, in which case the ship is to be condemned in the admiralty as a prize.

As for offences against the statute of the 15th Car. II. ch. 7. for the encouragement of trade, by that act no court of admiralty, either in England or the plantations, have any jurisdiction, the suits being to be in such courts, wherein no essoign, protection, or wager of law shall be allowed, which, by construction, are only the courts of law, where only essoigns, protection, or wager of law can be allowed.

The proceedings for offences against the statute 22-3 of Car. II. ch. 26. for regulating the plantation trade, by that act may be in the admiralty court in England, but not in the admiralty courts in the plantations.

The statute 7th William doth not give any jurisdiction to the admiralty court in England, for any offence in unlawful trading to or from the plantations, but suits on this act in England must be in the Queen's courts of record at Westminster; but proceedings may be in the ad