no means led to the abandonment of the earlier theory of conquest from infidels 
(the situation which gave the greatest latitude to the prerogative). This 
fiction was advanced with fervor by John Holt and other counsel in the great 
case of the East India Co. v. Sandys (1683—85) . 13 Jeffreys, C. J. gave the doctrine 
his benediction, and it is interesting to notice that years later Holt, when 
he had become Chief Justice, again had recourse to the fiction in Smith v. 
Brown (1702?) 14 when he took occasion to refer to Virginia as a conquered 
country. 
If circumstances conspired for an overlong delay in producing an explicit 
judicial pronouncement respecting the status of the plantations and the law 
there applicable, it is, nevertheless, plain from matter detailed in preceding 
chapters that executive action had exploited fully the doctrine of the King's 
dominions. And Parliament itself in the Navigation Act (1660) described the 
colonies as "Lands, Islands Plantations or Territories to his Maiesty belonging 
or in his possession." 
Shortly after the Revolution of 1688 an action on a bond was begun in King's 
Bench by one Blankard, Provost Marshal in Jamaica. By certain articles he had 
granted a deputation of this office to one Galdy for a yearly rent, and the latter 
had given the bond for the performance of the agreement. The defendant 
pleaded the Statute 6 Edward VI, c. 16, against the buying and selling of office 
by virtue of which both articles and bond were void. In plaintiff's replication 
it was averred that the island had been formerly held and inhabited by Spaniards, 
Indians, and other foreign enemies of the Kingdom of England, but 
it had been conquered in 1655. Since this time the inhabitants had been ruled 
and governed by their own proper laws and statutes, not by act of Parliament 
of England. To this defendant rejoined that before the conquest the islands 
were governed by their own laws, but that since then they had been parcel 
of the realm of England and were governed by its laws and statutes. To this 
plaintiff demurred. 15 
Sir Bartholomew Shower argued for plaintiff that acts of Parliament did 
not bind in Jamaica because they had no representatives in Parliament. He 
cited Elizabeth's Statute of Laborers and the Statute of Usury as examples of 
nonapplicability—the former obviously because of slavery and the second because 
of prevailing interest rates in Jamaica. Furthermore, the manner in 
which the Navigation Acts referred to "an English Plantation in America" 
indicated that the law of England did not extend there. Statute 6 Edward VI, 
c. 16, did not mention Jamaica and therefore had no force there. In the Earl 
13 10 Howell, State Trials, 371. 
15 Blankard v. Galdy. The Latin pleadings are 
in 4 Modern 215, This report was first published 
in 1703. 
14 2 Sal\eld 666. Decided after June 24, 1702, 
when Powell, J. took seat in Queen's Bench.