or dispense with this Act or authorize an importation contrary to it, or introduce 
new Duties or relinquish old ones, or admit to a subsequent Entry after 
a Previous Forfeiture." 
From Walpole's notes on the hearing before the Lords Committee in December, 
1766, 132 it appears that Forrester argued further for the appellants 
that the laws of a conqueror did not attach upon a conquered country until 
declared by the conqueror. Consequently the laws in question could not have 
force in Dominica. It was to be considered in the nature of a neutral island. 
No establishment was made there by the Government. The inhabitants could 
be privy to no constitution but what was published to them. They were subject 
therefore to such regulations as the governor made, which in this case had 
been proven. 
Charles Yorke, who appeared for respondent, asserted that from the moment 
of conquest the island was "subject to these and other Laws from the 
Navigation Act which have Words of futurity." There was no necessity of 
promulgating them. The governor could by no authority prevent the effect of 
them. 
The Committee advised affirmance of the sentences, and Lord President 
Northington (lately Lord Chancellor) expressed himself positively on the 
extension of the Acts of Trade: 
This is no question between the Subject and Sovereign but between the foreign 
Produce and the Produce of the British Colonies. These Laws made for the Encouragement 
of the British Plantations and relate to the carrying Goods from Plantations 
not in possession to Plantations in our Possession. 
All Civil Laws take place on promulgation in consequence of the King's Instruction 
—a great many Laws by statute are so adapted and tied down by the 
Constitution of the country are not incorporated merely by the Volition of the 
Crown. But that is not this case. Here the legislature does it by a proper description, 
they attach immediately; when they talk of a future possession, they take place as 
soon as the Crown has an actual indisputable Title— No doubt here that the 
Goods were imported from Martinique after English in possession of Dominique. 
These laws are as much promulged on the King's taking possession as if declared 
publickly— The King nor his officers could not say, they would suspend the operation 
of that Law. 
The affirming Order in Council issued February 13, 1767. 133 
It is hardly necessary to underline the far-reaching constitutional implications 
of Northington's remarks. They embody a fundamental alteration of the 
rule about conquest as it was understood up to that time, viz., that the law of 
132 WO 1/404/66. 
to informant, "The crown never receives or 
pays costs" (WO 1/404/66). 
133 4 APC, Col., #599. As to that part of the 
sentences relating to costs to be paid by claimant