This act is to continue no longer than Mr. Worsley shall continue Governor, and be personally resident on the island; if he once ceases to be Governor, though he hath afterwards a new commission granted him, I conceive the act is determined. By the statute of 6th Anne, the commissions of the Governors of the plantations are continued, for six months after the demise of the Queen, or her successors, and if a new commission was granted to Mr. Worsley within the six months af ter his late Majesty's demise, it may be a continuance of him as Governor within the intention of the act, though I think this point is something doubtful; but if the six months expired, and then a new commission was granted, it seems to me that the act is determined.

Feb. 1, 1728.

THOS. REEVE.

(3.) Mr. West's opinion, in 1725, whether a Governor can vote as a Councillor.

To the Right Hon., 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 sits 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 sits in their legislative capac

ity.

Jan. 8, 1724-5.

RICH. WEST.

(4.) Mr. West's opinion in 1719, concerning a Governor's power to prorogue the Assembly, under an adjourn

ment.

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

My Lords;

In obedience to your Lordships' commands, signified to me by Mr. Popple, I have considered the following questions, viz: Whether an Assembly under adjournment or prorogation, may be prorogued without a meeting, according to such previous adjournment, or prorogation? And I am clearly of opinion, that it may.

But, as I believe so general an answer to the question, will not be esteemed by your Lordship to be satisfactory, I shall beg leave to be a little more particular, in giving some reasons for such my opinion.

It may be made a question, whether the general assemblies of the several provinces in the West Indies, may be entitled to those privileges which are claimed by, and have, by the Crown, been allowed, to the parliaments of England; but it is most certain that the prerogative, in relation to their general assemblies, is at least as extensive as it ever was in England. In respect to our parliaments, and this prerogative of the Crown, whatever the extent of it may be, every Governor, by his commission, is empowered to exercise in his particular province.

The prerogative in the West Indies, unless where it

is abridged by grants, &c. made to the inhabitants of the respective provinces is that power over the subjects, considered either separately or collectively, by their representatives, which, by the common law of the land, abstracted from all acts of parliament and grants of liberties &c. from the Crown to the subjects, the King could rightfully exercise in England.

The only point of prerogative which this question relates to, is that power which the Crown has of summoning, proroguing, &c. of parliaments; and here your Lordships will be pleased to observe that this branch of the prerogative does at this time subsist entirely upon the foot of the common law and custom of parliaments, which, in this respect, must be considered as part of the common law, which has never been, in this particular, anywise abridged or circumscribed by any act of parliament; and, therefore, if the affirmative part of the question is impracticable in England, it is impossible a governor should be empowered to practise it, in Amer

ica.

The determination therefore, of this question depends entirely upon the custom of our English parliaments; in relation to which I shall observe to your lordships these two particulars, i. e. the present practice in our parliament as it appears to the public, and the words of the writ of prorogation.

Every parliament, whether it be upon original summons, or prorogation, &c. is always appointed to meet at a day certain, on which day the members are obliged to meet together unless the King does think fit to discharge them from their attendance; and as their obligation to attend does arise from writs under the great seal, their discharge must likewise flow from the same seal.

Now, if a parliament is summoned to meet on a certain day, and the Crown thinks it inconvenient the parliament should assemble on that day on which the writs of summons were returnable, a proclamation is issued (as it is generally supposed) to prorogue the meeting of the parliament to some further day, without there being any necessity of their meeting upon that day upon which their attendance was required by the original writ of summons. In this present parliament, we see it prorogued from time to time, and proclamations are constantly issued to notify it to the kingdom; and, although it is usual upon those days to which parliament stands prorogued, and when a further prorogation is to be made, for several lords and members of the house to attend in the parliament chamber on that day, yet such their attendance is no ways necessary, but the prorogation would be just as good if they were all in the country and the clerk of the parliament read the writ to his fellow officers; for the writ of prorogation being always tested some day before the day to which parliament stood prorogued, all the members are thereby actually discharged from their attendance.

I would beg leave further to observe to your lordships, that it is not by these proclamations, that parliaments are prorogued, but that they do always suppose a writ patent for the prorogation, which writ was anciently, when a prorogation was intended, sent to the sheriffs of the several counties, by whom it was proclaimed, in order to save the members the trouble of coming from town, and the counties and towns they represented, the expense of their journies; but the latter practice has been to supply this by printed proclamations, though, to this day, according to the ancient custom, the writ is

constantly read in the parliament chamber: and, that your lordships may judge whether the members were discharged from attending on the day to which the parliament stood prorogued, and that consequently no meeting could be necessary, I must beg leave to mention to your lordships some clauses of the writ.

But first I must observe, that the writ is not directed to any particular person, but is general, like a proclamation, the style of it is thus: "Prædilectis et fidelibus nostris prælatis, magnatibus et proceribus regni nostri Angliæ ac dilectis et fidelibus nostris militibus, civibus, et burgensibus dicti regni nostri, &c." and then, after specifying the day to which the King thinks fit further to prorogue his parliament, there is a clause inserted, for no other purpose but to discharge the members from meeting, on the day to which they were antecedently summoned, viz: "Ita quod nec vos, nec aliquis vestrum ad dictum diem apud civitatem praedictam comperere teneamini, seu arctemini; volumus enim vos et quemlibet vestrum inde erga nos penitus exonerari, &c." Now every session being in law a distinct parliament, and every prorogation putting an end to a session, the obligation upon the members to meet on the day mentioned in the writ of prorogation, is obviously the same as it was upon the original writ of summons; and consequently if the Crown can, by writ of prorogation, discharge the members from attending on the day fixed in the first writ of summons, the Crown can, in like manner, by another writ, discharge them as to the day to which the parliament stands prorogued.

As to adjournment, whether it be a royal adjournment, or an adjournment flowing from the votes of the houses, as the Crown could undoubtedly dissolve them