The Pratt-York opinion, also known as the Camden-Yorke opinion, was a 1757 official legal opinion that was issued jointly by Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden, the Attorney General for England and Wales, and Charles Yorke, the Solicitor General for England and Wales and former counsel to the East India Company, regarding the legality of land purchases by the British East India Company from the rulers of the princely states in British India.
In large part because of the opinion, India is one of the few common law jurisdiction that has rejected the doctrine of aboriginal title.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Origin
The opinion was issued in response to a petition from the British East India Company. The company had been involved in land disputes with regular army officers over both land acquired by purchase and land acquired by conquest.[7]
The opinion was reported on 24 December 1757.[8]
Text
The opinion began with the least controversial portion: territory gained by conquest was validly held by the company.[8] If in the course of the company's trade, the company acquired land by a defensive action, without the assistance of the regular army, it alone held title to those lands.[8]
The opinion went on to distinguish lands acquired by conquest from those acquired by treaty or negotiation.[8] In the former case, the Crown would acquire both sovereignty and title. In the latter case, the Crown would acquire sovereignty, but the company would acquire title.[8] Pratt and Yorke explained that in India, a land grant issued by the Crown was not a prerequisite for land titles to be valid.
The opinion condoned direct purchases "from the Mogul or any of the Indian Princes, or governments."
Chalmers' version
Effect in North America
Land speculators in North America who were opposed to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which prohibited private purchases of land from Native Americans, circulated modified versions of the Pratt–Yorke opinion.[10][11][12] Mistranslated versions of the opinion appeared in North America around 1757 or 1773[10] and omitted all reference to the East India Company or the Mogul but instead referred simply to "Indian Princes or Governments."[10]
One reproduction of that version of the opinion can be found in the flyleaf of George Washington's 1783 diary.[10] The land speculator William Murray attempted, based on another copy, to persuade a British military commander to allow him to begin negotiations with Indians.