Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/434

 420 ///. THE COLONIAL PERIOD of Ireland is used to point out an analogy between that and the situation of Jamaica. ^ The Court held, in part : "1, In case of an uninhabited country newly found out by English subjects, all laws in force in England are in force there: so it seemed to be agreed. " 2. Jamaica being conquered and not pleaded to be par- cel of the Kingdom of England but part of the possessions and revenue of the Crown of England, the laws of England did not take place there, until declared so by the conqueror or his successors. . . ." ^ That Jamaica was alleged to be a conquered country caused upon other occasions, some of which we shall notice later, con- siderable difficulty in determining the legal system of the island. The decision, it seems, is adverse to the extension of English laws, though the judges did not lay stress on the distinction between common and statute law. A clearer statement appears in the opinion of the Attorney- General, West, rendered in 1720, in which he said: " The common law of England is the common law of the plantations, and all statutes in affirmance of the common law, passed in England antecedent to the settlement of a colony, are in force in that colony, unless there is some private Act to the contrary ; though no statutes, made since those settle- ments, are thus in force unless the colonists are particularly mentioned. Let an Englishman go where he will, he carries as much of law and liberty with him as the nature of things will bear." 3 Nine years later, in connection with the dispute in Mary- land, Sir P. Yorke, then Attorney-General, gave an opinion on the same subject, which affords an interesting comparison with that of West. " Such general statutes as have been made since the settle- ment of Maryland, and are not by express words located either to the plantations in general or to this Province in par- ticular are not in force there, unless they have been introduced Sc6 l}dow • 4 Modern 215 ff. Salkeld 411. • Chalmers' Opinions, Vol. I., pp. 194-195.