Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/683

trade was carried on; but it must be observed, that legiance is reciprocum ligamen; wherefore, if protection be withdrawn, by forcibly banishing an inhabitant, the duty of legiance ceases. The appellant was therefore released from his temporary allegiance, when he was deprived of protection, and of his office of Alderman, and brought a prisoner upon the high seas from the British settlements, where the traffick in question could have been deemed illegal only while he resided upon the spot. That the act 7th Geo. I. which enables his Majesty's Attorney General, by his own authority, or at the relation of the East India Company, to recover £30 per cent. of the value in England, of all goods which are the subject of illicit trade, being a statute highly penal, must be construed strictly; in which case, being expressly confined to his Majesty's subjects, it could not be extended so as to comprehend the appellant, who became an Alderman of Calcutta in the character of an alien; and who, in fact, at the time when his effects were embarked in India, by another foreigner without his knowledge or privity, was not resident in any part of his Majesty's dominions, nor had any concern with the respondents, at whose instance, as relators, the Attorney General had filed the present information.

On behalf of the respondents it was said, (E. Thurlow, J. Skynner, C. Sayer) that when the appellant in the year 1759, entered into covenants with the East India Company, for his faithful service as their factor in Bengal, and continued in such service for seven years, it was not known to [428] the Company, or pretended by the appellant, that he was not a subject of his Majesty, but an alien owing no obedience to him. That the appellant after the expiration of his seven years service, was appointed by the Company's Governor and Council, an Alderman and Judge of the Mayor's court of Calcutta for his life; a high court of justice, constituted by his Majesty's charter, a court of record, and of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction; on the acceptance of which office, the appellant took the oaths of allegiance to his Majesty, and was bound to administer justice according to the laws of England; to which laws he now by his plea insisted he was not subject. That though by his Majesty's charter of justice, it was allowed that two of the Aldermen and Judges of the Mayor's court at Calcutta might be foreign Protestants, yet the appellant was admitted to such office, as if he had been a natural-born subject of his Majesty; and if he could now derive any extraordinary privilege from being an alien, such office of Alderman was obtained by a fraudulent concealment of the truth; no foreign Protestant having been admitted to it for many years past, from the great increase of his Majesty's subjects at that place. That when the appellant was, in the year 1768, informally and illegally removed by the Governor and Council at Calcutta from the office of Alderman of the Mayor's court, he appealed to his Majesty in Council to be restored to the said office; but he did not in that petition represent himself as a foreign Protestant, or an alien, or in any manner distinguish himself from the rest of his Majesty's subjects. That if those who have been in the service of the East India Company, being aliens, or pretending to be aliens, may lawfully carry East India commodities from the Company's settlements to the ports of foreign kingdoms, it would virtually put an end to the Company's charter, and all the acts of parliament made for securing that trade to this kingdom and if the appellant could avail himself of his present plea, he was in a better situation as an alien, than any of his Majesty's subjects; for he would have the protection and benefit of the laws of England, without being amenable to them.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the order therein complained of, affirmed. (MS. Jour. sub anno 1772-3. p. 706.)