his new Roman Catholick subjects may profess the worship of their religion 
according to the rites of the Romish church, as far as the laws of Great Britain 
permit." By the ninth article the same stipulations were made in favor of the 
inhabitants of Grenada and the Grenadines. 111 We have seen it stated that 
in the case of a conquered Christian country its laws remained in force until 
altered by the King. Thus, in the royal proclamation of October 7, 1763, it 
was declared that until local assemblies could be established in the ceded 
possessions "all persons inhabiting in or resorting to our said colonies may 
confide in our royal protection for the enjoyment of the benefit of the laws of 
our realm of England." That this proclamation did not extend all the laws of 
England to the newly acquired dominions is evident from the clause that 
justice should be administered "according to law and equity, and as near as 
may be agreeable to the laws of England." 112 
The status of Roman Catholics in the possessions ceded by the Treaty of 
Paris was not put to the crown law officers until 1765. In a June 10 opinion 
Norton and De Grey declared that "His Majesty's Roman Catholick subjects 
residing in the countries, ceded to His Majesty in America, by the definitive 
Treaty of Paris, are not subject, in those colonies, to the incapacities, disabilities, 
and penalties, to which Roman Catholicks in this kingdom are subject 
by the laws thereof." 113 In a January 8,1768, report to the Committee in which 
Marriott, the King's Advocate, joined with the crown law officers, it was 
affirmed that "the several acts of Parliament which impose disabilities and 
penalties upon the public exercise of the Roman Catholick religion, do not 
extend to Canada." 114 Obviously the same held true for Grenada. 115 A further 
report (September 5, 1768) of De Grey on several Grenada acts also stated 
that "the statutes imposing disabilities on Roman Catholics ... do not extend 
to His Majesty's new subjects." 110 In none of these cases is the reasoning apparent 
by which the conclusion was arrived at —whether the treaty terms were 
conceived of as limiting the proclamation or whether emphasis was placed 
upon the word "benefits" in the proclamation. 
When the case of Scott v. Brebner and Home came before the Lords Com- 
mittee (Eardley Wilmot, Chief Justice of Common Pleas, was present) not 
the least acquaintance with the earlier opinions or the reasoning behind them 
was exhibited. William Samuel Johnson, present at the hearing, noted as the 
"decision" of the Committee that: 
111 1 Doc. Rel. Const. Hist. Canada, 115-18. 
For the royal instruction issued in accordance 
with the treaty provision see 2 Labaree, Royal 
Instructions, #720. 
112 1 Doc. Rel. Const. Hist. Canada, 165. 
113 1 ibid., 236. For some discussion of the 
status of Roman Catholics in England in this 
period see Mullett, Catholics and the Courts 
in England since the Protestant Revolt, 9 Fordham 
L.R., 38-64. 
114 CO 5/216/41. 
115 See the April 14, 1766, report of Yorke 
and De Grey regarding the civil government 
of Quebec (1 Doc. Rel. Const, Hist. Canada, 
256). 
116 5 ARC, Col., p. 6.