far as they are contrary to our religion, or enact any thing, that is malum in se; for in all such cases the laws of the conquering or acquiring country shall prevail. This qualification of the rule arises from the presumption, that the crown could never intend to sanction laws contrary to religion or sound morals.[1] But although the king has thus the power to change the laws of ceded and conquered countries, the power is not unlimited. His legislation is subordinate to the authority of parliament. He cannot make any new change contrary to fundamental principles; he cannot exempt an inhabitant from that particular dominion, as for instance from the laws of trade, or from the power of parliament; and he cannot give him privileges exclusive of other subjects.[2]
§ 151. Mr. Justice Blackstone, in his Commentaries, insists, that the American colonies are principally to be deemed conquered, or ceded countries. His language is, "Our American Plantations are principally of this later sort, [i. e. ceded or conquered countries,] being obtained in the last century either by right of conquest and driving out the natives, (with what natural justice I shall not at present inquire,) or by treaties. And, therefore, the common law of England, as such, has no allowance or authority there ; they being no part of the mother country, but distinct, though dependent dominions."[3]
- ↑ Blankard v. Galy, 4 Mod. 222; S. C. 2 Salk. 411, 412; 2 Peere Will. 75; 1 Black. Comm. 107; Campbell v. Hall, Cowp. R. 204, 209, Calvin's case, 7 Co. 1. 17. b; Com. Dig. Navigation, G. 1, 3; Id. Ley. C. 4 Burr. R. 2500; 2 Merivaie R. 143, 157, 158.
- ↑ Campbell v. Hall, Cowp. R. 204, 209; Chitty on Prerog. ch. 3, p. 29, &c.
- ↑ 1 Bl. Comm. 107; Chitty on Prerog. ch. 3, p. 29.
