eyres. 23 Cases which were not so adjourned are also to be found on the coram 
rege rolls. 24 In addition, petitions in judicial proceedings were presented to 
the Council in Parliament. 25 Recourse to tribunals outside the islands was not 
compelled because of lack of insular appellate review. With certain exceptions, 
causes could be appealed from the local royal courts to the assizes. 26 
Also one group of itinerant justices might review the acts of a former set. 27 
It may be contended that the islanders wished to confine review to these 
last two methods, but there are several indications that they realized the 
existence of some appellate jurisdiction outside the islands. An undated Guernsey 
franchise admits this right without naming the body to whom the appeal 
should be made. 28 Furthermore, the Norman precedents would seem to admit 
of an extra-insular appeal. 29 The provisions of the alleged constitution of King 
John wherein the jurats were to aid in making the record would indicate that 
a case could at least be adjourned coram rege. 30 The essence of this privilege 
would therefore appear to be that no court outside the islands should have 
original jurisdiction except in the specified cases. 
During the first half of the fourteenth century the litigant dissatisfied with 
insular justice frequently sought relief from the Council in Parliament. 31 Direct 
petitionary approach to this body was diverted by the intervention of 
intermediate agencies in the form of receivers and auditors of petitions. 32 
Important evidence as to the handling of Channel Islands petitions is available 
for the 1305 Lenten Parliament. At this Parliament four persons were appointed 
to receive and sort the petitions. 33 Following this process the documents 
were forwarded to four separate groups delegated to try petitions from 
England, Scotland, Gascony, and Ireland and the Channel Islands. 34 The 
23 Le Patourel, op. cit., 18, 112; cases are also 
found scattered through Rolls of the Assizes, 
1309. 
24 Le Patourel, op. cit., 19. 
25 See Rotuli Parliamentorum Anglic hactenus 
inediti (Camden Soc. Pub., ed. H. G. Richardson 
and G. Sayles, 1935), 46-54; 1 Rotuli Parliamentorum 
159 a; Macqueen, op. cit., 682-85. 
26 The Extentes of Guernsey, 149; Rolls of the 
Assizes, 1309, 207; Havet, loc. cit., 18. 
27 Havet, loc. cit., 21-22, 227; Ancient Petitions, 
31-32 (#12,834). Cf. 8 State Trials 
(n.s.), 1176. 
28 Havet, loc. cit., iqi. 
29 See W. Berry, History of the Island of 
Guernsey (1815), 50. 
30 See Falle, op. cit., 222; Havet, loc. cit., 248; 
Rolls of the Assizes, 1309, 30—31. 
31 See supra, n. 25; cf. Le Patourel, op. cit., 
in. 
32 See Richardson and Sayles, The King's Ministers 
in Parliament, 12.72-1377, 46 EHR 532; 
cf. Wilkinson, The Chancery under Edward 111 
(1929), 48. For discussion of the origins of the 
petition as a procedural device, see Ehrlich, 
Proceedings against the Crown (1216-1377), 
83 et seq. 
33 Memoranda de Parliamento (ed. F. W. 
Maitland, 1893), 3. 
34 Ibid., 3-4. Only the "Isle de Gernesseye" is 
mentioned in the appointment, but Richardson 
and Sayles (loc. cit., 543) and Maitland (Mem. 
de Pari., lix) interpret the appointment as for 
"the Channel Islands." The triers in practice 
support this terminology. See Rot. Pari. Ang. 
hac. ined., 50, 51, 54. Maitland calls the trier 
groups "committees" (Mem. de Pari., lviii, lx), 
but Mcllwaine prefers "a part of the council," 
since their action appears to have been final in 
all cases not transmitted to the whole Council