sell." 65 This would appear to substantiate contentions that the conciliar claim 
to sole appellate jurisdiction was not uncontested, and perhaps was of not too 
ancient origin. 60 Although during the reign of Henry VIII many petitions 
were presented to the King concerning the administration of Jersey justice, 67 
the available records furnish no information as to an existing appellate system. 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER ELIZABETH 
It is only when the reign of Elizabeth is reached that evidence is available as 
to an existent appellate system. Yet even during this reign it was necessary to 
assert the sole appellate jurisdiction of the Queen in Council and to prohibit 
appeals elsewhere. 68 Before examining the appellate procedure, the character 
of the Elizabethan Privy Council should be noticed in relation to its competence 
as a judicial body. Membership was comparatively limited, fluctuating 
between ten and twenty. 69 Except for the Lord Chancellor and the Lord 
Keeper, professional jurists were not usually included among the members. 70 
Meetings which varied widely in attendance were held in various localities 
65 The Jersey Prison Board Case, Appen. 11, 
191. 
66 For the conciliar background o£ this assertion 
of jurisdiction see Plucknett, The Place of 
the Council in the Fifteenth Century, 1 Trans. 
Royal Hist. Soc. (4th ser.), 157 et seq. 
67 See I APC, Dom., 554. There is evidence 
that Chancery was exercising jurisdiction over 
insular judicial matters at this period; see 6 
Soc. Jer. Bull. 252, 265. 
68 The inhabitants of Jersey and Guernsey in 
1565 complained that contrary to ancient 
charters and liberties they were called to answer 
in England by process awarded out of 
various English courts of record and that "after 
judgementes gyven in the same Isles, appeales 
[were] made hither unto the said courtes to 
the grete troble and vexacion of the said inhabitantes." 
The Solicitor General was required 
to take the opinions of the two lord 
chief justices, and Governor Paulet of Jersey 
was asked his opinion. Upon return of these 
opinions it was ordered that all suits begun or 
to be commenced in the islands where one or 
both parties were insular subjects should be 
heard and decided there. It was further resolved, 
"that no appeales should be made from 
any sentence in judgement geven in the same 
Isles hither but only acordinge to the wordes 
of their charters, Au Roy et son Counssill, 
which agreeth, as Sir Hughe Powlett allegeth, 
with such order and forme as hath here before 
ben acustomyd." Chancery and the Court of 
Requests were particularly stigmatized for issuance 
of process against the islanders (7 APC, 
Dom., 211, 223; cf. Dasent, ibid., Preface, 
xxix). In 1578 the question again arose of 
possible infringement of island privileges if 
Governor Leighton should answer the accusation 
of one Bourdon in any court of the realm. 
Doctors Dale and Aubrey asked whether "it 
should be first proceeded in in that place, and 
by appeale from thence be brought before their 
Lordships and none other" (10 APC, Dom., 
428). The Council in the same year also relieved 
some Guernsey subjects from suit in 
Ipswich, declaring that the controversy was triable 
in Guernsey "and from thence by appeale 
returnable onlie to the Councill Table" {ibid., 
436). Compare the provisions as to appellate 
jurisdiction in the 1560 royal charter to Guernsey 
(Berry, op. cit., 326—27) and the 1562 
Jersey charter (8 State Trials [n.s.] 1100). 
69 See 1 Turner, The Privy Council of England 
(1927), 33-34; Black, The Reign of Elizabeth 
(1936), 169. 
70 See the indices of conciliar attendance in the 
Acts of the Privy Council, Domestic. The first 
judge sworn a member of the Council was 
Chief Justice Popham in May, 1599 (29 APC, 
Dom., 738); see Pollard, Council, Star Chamber, 
and Privy Council under the Tudors, 38 
EHR, 60. On the composition of the Council, 
cf. 8 APC, Dom., xxvii-xxviii.