In any event, the instrument frequently used by the Council Board for rehearings was the insular commission. These ad hoc commissions in private litigation are not to be confused with the sweeping commissions used by the Council as instruments of administrative and judicial control. 01 The provisions contained in conciliar letters authorizing action by commissioners varied from case to case. Commonly inserted were directions that the parties be called before the commissioners, 92 and that evidence produced by the parties be considered by the commissioners. 93 In some cases the former proceedings in the cause were ordered to be considered. 94 Provisions as to the finality of the commission proceedings varied, 95 and the personnel of the insular commissions lar appeal therefrom. One de Soulement complained that by the devices of his adversary and the negligence of petitioner's procuror default had been made below. Therefore, it was prayed "to have revision and examinasion of the said cause and sentence, being a thing usuall to be done among you uppon our like directions as meet and appertayning to justyce." The Royal Court was thereupon directed to proceed to a new hearing and examination of the cause and to determine the cause with better knowledge on both sides (18 APC, Dom., 39). Upon allegations of one Le Hagais that a sentence contrary to justice was obtained by some sinister information or otherwise, the Royal Court was ordered to reexamine the cause and hear further proofs on both sides (19 ibid., 140). See the action on the petition of one Lawrence to the same effect (19 ibid., 140). Upon allegations of improper adversary alliance with the bailiff by one Goalement, a cause was ordered reexamined (19 ibid., 139). These are editorially termed appeals by Dasent. But in Le Febure v. Harmon (28 ibid., 107) a petition was presented complaining that a sentence was obtained by surprise when petitioner was unprovided with proofs. It was ordered that "because the tyme of appeale ys expired, these shalbe therefore to require you to take present order that the cause of the poore suppyaunts maie be re-examyned with the proofes on both sides, and thereuppon to take soche order as in right and equity apperteineth." But in the case of the complaints of Le Hagais (supra, n. 90) and of Lawrence (supra, n. 90) rehearings were seemingly conditional upon substantiation of allegations made before the Council. 91 In 1579 Dr. Hammond, Thomas Flemminge, and others were appointed commissioners for Guernsey to investigate grievances, including maladministration of justice (n APC, Dom., 200). The inhabitants had complained "for wronges don unto them by the said Bailiffe and Jurates in cases of judgment and appeales uppon suites brought before drem for title of lande and inheritaunce" (n ibid., 335-36). The provision as to appeals inserted in the 1691 commission to Pine and Napper for Jersey was as follows: "if you find any appeales or other causes of variance, wherewith the Lordes of her Majesties Privye Councell should be importuned, to call the parties before you, by order of this Commission, and to examine the matters in controversie and all their witnesses lawfully produced, on both sides, and to make some good end for the compounding the differences according to equitie if you may; otherwise to signify to their Lordshipps what you find, together with the order of your proceeding in that behalf" (4 Le Geyt, op. cit., 263). For the source of this clause see 20 APC, Dom., 276-77; for execution thereof by the commissioners see 4 Le Geyt, op. cit., 263-67. 92 In re Goalement (19 APC, Dom., 139); Payne v. Constant (27 ibid., 338); Dumaresq v. Gillom (27 ibid., 356); Godfrey v. Messervy (29 ibid., 500); Le Porke v. Mountes (30 ibid., 642). 03 Le Hagais v. Cabot (19 ibid., 140); Rowse v. Labey (27 ibid., 54); Godfrey v. Messervy (supra, n. 92); Sare v. Lempriere (29 ibid., 584); Le Porke v. Mountes {supra, n. 92). 84 Godfrey v. Messervy (supra, n. 92); Sare v. Lempriere (supra, n. 93); Nicolle v. Le Cornu (32 ibid., 433). 95 In some cases no provision was made for further consideration by the Council, and the judgment of the commissioners was final (de Soulement v. de Soulement, 18 APC, Dom., 39; Nicolle v. Le Cornu, supra, n. 94). Or the referees might be ordered to proceed to