siastical jurisdiction; and by section 94, the Bishop of Calcutta was to be Metropolitan in India. On a question which came before the Queen's Advocate (Sir Travers Twiss), Mr. Pontifex, and myself, in 1868, as to whether the Crown had the power to vary by letters patent the limits of the dioceses of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, we were of opinion that, having regard to the statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 93, the Crown had such power; but it was so doubtful whether there was any power in the Crown to alter and vary by letters patent the limits of the existing archdeaconries of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay respectively, that we advised that, if the scheme were carried out, an Act of Parliament should be obtained for the purpose. We added that the Crown, in our opinion, had not the power to grant by letters patent to the bishops of the respective dioceses in India, jurisdiction over congregations of the Church of England in places not within the dominions of the Crown. Administra If a will be made in this country and proved in the Prerogative Effect of Court, the probate will not extend to property in the colonies. Nor Letters of will a grant of administration obtained here, although the intestate tion in the was resident and died in this country: Burn v. Cole, Amb. 416; Atkins Colonies. v. Smith, 2 Atk. 63; Thorne v. Watkins, 2 Ves. Sen. 35. And if the testator was domiciled here, the Judge of Probate in the colony is bound by the probate here, and ought to grant it to the same person: per Lord Mansfield, in Burn v. Cole, ubi sup. If the testator is domiciled in a colony, the will should be proved in the Probate Court there, and a copy transmitted to, and proved in, the Ecclesiastical Court here, as an original will: Williams on Executors, 303, 308 (4th edit.). See Hare v. Nasmyth, 2 Add. 25. A probate obtained in the proper ecclesiastical court here extends to all the personal property of the deceased, wherever situate at the time of his death, including the colonies and any country abroad: Whyte v. Rose, 3 Q. B. 493 (in Error); see Swift v. Nun, 26 L. J. (Ex.) (N.S.) 365. A grant of administration obtained here will not extend to the colonies, though the intestate died and was resident here. It has been held that a foreign plantation, though an inheritance, was to be looked upon as a chattel to pay debts, and a testamentary thing : Noell v. Robinson, 2 Ventr. 358; see also Blankard v. Galdy, 4 Mod. 215. And as to property in any of the British plantations in America, see statute 5 Geo. 2, c. 7, repealed as to negroes by statute 37 Geo. 3, c. 119: see Thomson v. Grant, 1 Russ. 540; and Manning v. Spooner, 3 Ves. 118. The compensation money for slaves in Jamaica was held to be legal assets in Lyon v. Colville, 1 Coll. 449. The term British plantations in America, in statute 5 Geo. 2, c. 7, includes the West Indies, and it has been held that although estates there were made legal assets by that statute, they might be devised so as to make them equitable assets: Charlton v. Wright, 12 Sim. 274. As to the East Indies, see statute 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 79, s. 21; 55 Geo. 3, c. 84; Act of the GovernorGeneral of India in Council VII. of 1849, and Act II. of 1850. CHAPTER III. ON THE POWERS AND DUTIES AND THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITIES OF GOVERNORS OF COLONIES. (1.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR THOMAS TREVOR and SIR JOHN HAWLES, as to how a Lieutenant-Governor could be tried for Misdemeanor. 1701. To the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. In answer to your Lordships' quæries, signified to us by Mr. Popple the 30th of April last, relating to offences committed by Captain Norton, and against the Act for regulating abuses in the plantation trade: First: We are of opinion that, for such offence or wilful neglect, the Lieutenant-Governor, Captain Norton, may be indicted and tried in the Court of King's Bench, by virtue of the Act for punishing governors of plantations for offences committed by them in the plantations. But we doubt whether he will incur the penalty of £1000 by the Act, made the 7th and 8th of the King, for regulating abuses in the plantation trade; for the words of the Act extend only to Governors and Commanders-in-Chief, and is given only for the offence of not taking the oaths or putting the Acts in execution; but he will be finable at the discretion of the Court. Secondly: We think a foreigner endenized is qualified to be master of a ship trading to the plantations, unless there be a provision in the letters patent of denization, that such denization shall not enable him to be master of a ship, which is usually inserted for that purpose; but hath been omitted in some denizations of French Protestants since the reign of his present Majesty, by Order of Council. Thirdly: We are of opinion, that a Scotchman is to be accounted as an Englishman within the Act, every Scotchman being a natural born subject. June 4, 1701. THOS. TREVOR. JOHN HAWLES. (2.) OPINIONS of MR. REEVE (afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Pleas), and MR. LUTWYCHE, King's Counsel, on the effect of the Demise of the Crown on a Colonial Act granting a salary to the Governor of a Colony. 1727. I am of opinion that this Act is not determined by the demise of his Majesty King George, but will remain in force as long as Mr. Worsley continues Governor of Barbadoes, and shall personally reside in the island. It is observable that the tax, &c., is granted to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, during the continuance of the Act: it is limited to continue for so long time as Mr. Worsley shall continue to be his Majesty's Captain-General, &c. Yet, I conceive these words will have the same construction. as if it had been limited to continue so long as Mr. Worsley should be the King's Captain-General; and as the King, in law, never dies, I conceive the demise of King George I. will not be a determination of this Act. January 15, 1727. THOMAS REEVE. I am of opinion that upon the demise of his late Majesty, the Act for granting the £6000 per annum did not determine; for I think it is clear that the Governor's commission continued for the space of six months after the death of the King, by virtue of an Act of Parliament in Queen Anne's reign, unless the commission was superseded in the meantime; and if the commission was determined by ending at the six months, I am of opinion that the Act had determined also, though the Governor had been appointed afterwards, because he once ceased to be Governor under any commission. But if the fact was, that within the six months he had a new commission, it is doubtful whether his continuing Governor without intermission will not be sufficient to entitle him to the £6000 per annum by the Act; and upon consideration of these F three clauses, I am inclinable to think that it will entitle him so long as he remains Governor, and continues without intermission; but perhaps it might be made plainer by seeing the whole Act. February 1, 1728. T. LUTWYCHE. (3.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR THOMAS TREVOR and SIR JOHN HAWLES, on the determination of a Governor's Commission. 1700. To the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,-Upon perusal of their Excellencies the Lords Justices' letter to the President and Council of Nevis, dated the 29th September, 1698, and of a copy of a commission granted by his Majesty to Colonel Fox, dated the 15th November, 1699, we are humbly of opinion, that the powers and authorities given by the Lords Justices to the President and Council of Nevis were determined by the commission to Colonel Fox, upon the arrival of Colonel Fox there and publication of his commission, and we conceive he might upon his coming there before Colonel Codrington, by virtue of his commission, dispossess the President and Council, and assume to himself that government until the arrival of Colonel Codrington there. August 9, 1700. THOMAS TREVOR. (4.) OPINION of MR. WEST (afterwards Lord Chancellor of Ireland), as to whether a Governor can vote as a Councillor. 1725. To the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. MY LORDS,-In obedience to your Lordships' commands, signified to me by letter from Mr. Popple, dated the 24th day of November last, I have considered the following quare, whether a Governor can vote, as a Councillor, in the passing of bills, when the Council sit in their legislative capacity? Upon consideration of which, and of the Governor's commission and instructions, I am of opinion that a Governor cannot, by law, vote as a Councillor in the passing of bills, when the Council sit in their legislatíve capacity. January 8, 1724-5. RICHARD WEST. (5.) OPINION of the Attorney General, SIR JOHN WILLES, on the right of the Proprietor of Maryland to appoint to Offices under the King's Charter. 1737. Quære 1. Whether by the Charter of Maryland, the Lord Proprietor has not a right to the nomination of all officers in general, civil as well as military? Answer. I am of opinion that by the Charter of Maryland, the Lord Proprietor has a right to nominate and appoint all officers in general, as well civil as military. Quære 2. Whether there is anything particular in the nature of the office of Treasurer, of either shore, to exempt it from the said nomination? Answer. It does not appear to me, that there is anything so particular in the nature of the office of Treasurer, of either shore, as to take the right of nomination to this office from the Lord Proprietor, and to give it to any other persons. Quære 3. Whether a few precedents in this case, of a Treasurer being appointed by tripartite concurrence of both Houses of Assembly and the Governor, can or do overthrow his Lordship's right? Answer. All the precedents, except one, being between 1692 and 1716, when my Lord Baltimore was out of possession, I am of opinion that they will not overthrow his Lordship's right, founded upon such plain words in the Charter. Quære 4. Whether the precedents, hereunto annexed, do divest the Lord Proprietor of his right of nomination to the office of Treasurer or Treasurers, so nominated, they giving the security the law directs? Answer. The Treasurer or Treasurers, when nominated by the |