23 July 1802 N. S. Wales 6

"the laws of the Infidel are abrogated .... But if a King hath a kingdom by

title of descent, then, seeing by "the laws of that

kingdom he doth inherit the kingdom,

"he cannot change those laws of himself without consent "of

Parliament.'

In all this which together with about 50 folio pages of such matter is the

gratuitous effusion of the learning and eloquence of the reporting Judge,

there is no more has no more in it of law of binding law capable

of standing, 4 are but dicta, not binding like Clarks case

against any in case of repugnancy

1 or either against any single decision,

or acknowledged constitutional principle, than there is in the

torts out of Virgil and Aristotle and every body

in that are mixed up with it. 5 If binding, so much the

better —

negates the right in all but conquered Colonies

I give this This observation I give not as a position in the

establishment of which I

have my interest. — but on the contrary as an

admission: an an acknowledgment

concession of which the antipathy I feel for every thing that

savors of [jargon and fraud and] imposition is the cause. For if it were

all clear law, nothing could be more favorable short of a

opinion on the very point to my opinion nothing more fatal to the

opinion of any one should

M r Pitt, supposing

have really to fancy himself capable of maintaining saying any

thing in defence of the right of the

to his assumed in the name of the Crown to legislate in New South

Wales.] In that only one of Lord Cokes two cases, with which

in point of fact the case of New South Wales agrees has

any agreement is not the very opposite

in point of fact, the King can not " change" " laws" — Lord Coke expressly assures

us he can not do any thing in the way of legislation, " without consent of Parliament." The proposition

is in the form of it one indefinite and, (if a

King hath a kingdom) which as such is

equivalent to a

universal