was largely lacking in standardization. 96 Despite the wide use made of commissions, 
it should not be overlooked that the royal courts could be ordered 
to rehear a cause. 97 In short, the conspicuous element of this aspect of conciliar 
jurisdiction is the total lack of formalization. No pattern is discoverable 
for prediction as to the future course of a specific appeal before the Council 
Board. 
In most cases the appeal was not dealt with so summarily by the Council. 
Instead, the petition of appeal and ancillary petitions presented in the course 
of the appellate proceedings were referred by the Council to members of a 
group which may be conveniently termed the conciliar legal advisers. 98 This 
group was loosely composed of the crown law officers, various judicial figures, 
and "learned counsell." 99 The terms of the individual references made to the 
legal advisers varied. A reference might contain authority to examine and 
settle an appeal if possible; if not, to certify the proceedings therein to the 
Council. 100 Or a reference might only authorize an examination of an appeal 
and certification of opinion therein. 101 The certificate returned by the legal 
judgment and certify their proceedings to the 
Council Board (Le Hagais v. Cabot, supra, 
n. 93; Lawrence v. Fourneaux, 19 APC, 
Dom., 140). Or if the commissioners could 
not settle the cause, they might be ordered to 
take bonds of the parties to appear before" 
the Privy Council in prosecution of an appeal 
and to certify their proceedings (Payne v. 
Constant, supra, n. 92; Rowse v. Labey, 
supra, n. 93; Le Porke v. Mountes, supra, 
n. 92). 
96 Signeur de Rosol, Hampton Stocker, la 
Rocher, or any two thereof {In re Goalement, 
supra, n. 92); the governor of Jersey, three 
jurats, and two others, or any three, four or 
five thereof (Godfrey v. Messervy, supra, n. 
92); the governor of Guernsey, and three 
named persons, or any two or three thereof 
(Sare v. Lempriere, supra, n. 93); the governor 
of Jersey and three others, or any three 
thereof (Le Porke v. Mountes, supra, n. 92). 
97 De Soulement v. de Soulement, supra, n. 
95; Le Hagais v. Cabot, supra, n. 93; Lawrence 
v. Fourneaux, supra, n. 95. 
98 See inter alia Harris v. Arthur (15 APC, 
Dom., 403); Perin v. Perin (18 ibid., 386); 
Rowse v. Gower (21 ibid., 298); Regina v. 
Beauvoir (21 ibid., 296); Gallie v. de la 
Rocque (25 ibid., 144); Blundell v. de Soulement 
(28 ibid., 514); Herault v. Nicholes (31 
ibid., 251). 
99 Among the various references are the following: 
to "her Majesty's Learned Counsaile" 
(28 APC, Dom., 557); to her Majesty's 
learned counsel or any of them (28 ibid., 
515); to the Attorney General and the Solicitor 
(16 ibid., 4); to the Master of the Rolls, 
the Solicitor and Dr. Hammond (14 ibid., 31); 
to Judge of the Admiralty Caesar (29 ibid., 
72); to Francis Bacon (28 ibid., 538); to the 
Solicitor General and Recorder of London 
(26 ibid., 32); to Council Clerk Beale and 
Dr. Dunne (30 ibid., 736). In the earlier appeals 
the Attorneys and Solicitors General are 
the most frequent referees; toward the end of 
the period the Solicitor General is most prominent. 
In one instance the respective governors 
of Jersey and Guernsey were joined with 
Solicitor General Francis Bacon and the Recorder 
of London "to the end that, by joyning 
the knowledg of the customes of the said 
Islandes togither with the rule of law and 
justice, you may consider of such an ende and 
agreement betwixt them as may be agreable 
both to law and good conscience" (28 ibid., 
296). Dr. Hammond is also mentioned as one 
acquainted with island causes (13 ibid., 160). 
As to his Majesty's "learned counsel," see 6 
Holdsworth, HEL, 472-74. 
100 Harris v. Arthur (15 APC, Dom., 403); 
Perin v. Perin (18 ibid., 386). In the former 
case the referees were to bind the parties to 
appear before the Council in case of inability 
to settle the cause. 
101 In Gallie v. de la Rocque (25 APC, Dom., 
144), the Board wrote that "we have thought