had a power to make judges, and therefore he was more than a judge"). He 
was lawfully commissioned governor and was only censurable by the King. 
Furthermore, the original charge was before a council of state. Pressing the 
analogy with the English Privy Council, counsel claimed the statute 16 Charles 
I, c. 10, had not restrained the Privy Council's power to commit state delinquents. 
Finally, without entering into explanations, it was averred that the 
laws in Barbados were different from those in England. The case for plaintiff 
in error concluded with a general policy argument respecting the inadvisability 
of allowing actions against colonial officials for what was done in governing 
those countries. 
Sir Bartholomew Shower and Edward Northey appeared for the executors, 
and although Shower did not advert to Blan\ard v. Galdy, it is apparent that 
he availed himself of what had there been said. He followed a line of strict 
common law constitutional argument, viz., that arrests could only be by 
known officers and English law knew no such officer as a governor. In the 
second place he pursued the common law rules respecting commissions: they 
must be explicit and must be executed according to their very terms. The 
letters patent gave the Barbados Council only advisory powers; by the form 
of the patent no lawful act could be done by less than the full number of 
councilors. Here, moreover, was a transitory action, and it followed anyone 
who came within the reach of common law process. The justification of the 
tort must be according to common law, "for that Barbados is under the same 
law as England." Counsel admitted the authority of Calvin's Case, but denied 
that Barbados was a conquest —■" 'Twas a colony or plantation," and so it was 
referred to in letters patent, proclamations, and acts of Parliament. "But whatsoever 
may be said by some as to statutes binding them, the Common law 
must and doth oblige there, for 'tis a Plantation or new settlement of Englishmen 
by the King's consent in an uninhabited country." When Englishmen 
go there, the common law must be presumed to be their rule for this is their 
birthright. 
Having thus used Holt's dictum in Blan\ard v. Galdy, Shower proceeded to 
fortify it by showing that even if one followed the international law rule that 
title is gained by the first occupant, the rules of descent will be those of the 
settler, and grants of the crown will be in socage —a common law tenure. 
Shower's views did not, however, prevail, for the House of Lords reversed 
judgment. 
We have dwelt at length upon these cases because they represent the sum of 
judicial and forensic wisdom on the subject of common law reception at the 
opening of the eighteenth century. They were early published and widely 
circulated and exercised consequently a more considerable influence than their