formalism and by absence of predictability. This long reign was a mere prologue 
in which nascent judicial power was cloaked by mechanical functions, 
in which a grandiose jurisdiction was maintained at the expense of measured 
deliberation—an epoch of reference to and of reliance upon the advice and 
actions of extra-conciliar bodies. 
CHANNEL ISLANDS APPEALS UNDER THE FIRST STUARTS 
Due to an unfortunate destruction of the Privy Council registers, the early 
transitional years of the Stuart Council must remain obscure. 151 One bit of 
information has survived —that on June 9,1605, further regulations for Guernsey 
appeals were issued by the Board. 152 As to the externals of the Council 
at this date, it can be said that membership during the reign of James I increased 
gradually until the Council approximately doubled that of Elizabeth 
in numbers. 153 Under Charles I membership usually stood between thirty 
and forty. 154 But the entire body seldom assembled; ten or twelve has been 
estimated as an average attendance. 155 This numerical increase combined 
with an increase in conciliar business, necessitating the adoption of a committee 
system to expedite the conciliar routine. 158 Generally, it can be stated 
that the King was not present in Council, although Charles did attend more 
frequently as his reign progressed. 157 Geographically, the Privy Council tended 
to centralize at Whitehall. 158 
Among the institutional developments of the early Stuart period was the 
expansion of the Council's judicial and deliberative work. An inevitable concomitant 
was the decline in the functional importance of ancillary conciliar 
groups. 159 A manifestation of this institutional growth is found in the active 
151 The Privy Council registers from Jan. i, 
1601/2, to April 30, 1613, were destroyed 
by a fire at Whitehall in January, 1618 (APC, 
Dom., 1613—14, v). 
152 By this regulation no appeals were to be 
made from Guernsey concerning matters of 
inheritance under of annual rent, nor for 
any movable goods under the value of ,£lO 
sterling (ibid., 1627, 370). 
153 1 Turner, The Privy Council of England, 
72-75- 
15i Ibid., 79. 
155 Ibid., 97, 100. There is noticeable an attendant 
nucleus of important officials of the 
state (ibid., 98-99). Meetings were so frequent 
that regular attendance would have been onerous 
(ibid., 93). 
158 E. I. Carlyle, Committees of Council under 
the Earlier Stuarts, 21 EHR, 674. Some use of 
a form of committee system is found previously 
in the reigns of Mary (4 APC, Dom., xxxv, 
397) and Elizabeth (6 ibid., xi, 27-28; 11 
ibid., xii; 21 ibid., xxi); cf. Percy, op. cit., 37- 
39. Earlier in the Stuart period Sir Francis 
Bacon had advocated adoption of a committee 
system (Bacon's Essays [ann. R. Whately, 
1863], 212-13). 
157 1 Turner, op. cit., 101-2. 
i- ss lbid., 86-92. 
159 The large itinerant commission still retained 
some importance. See the March, 
1616/7, instructions to Jersey commissioners 
Conway and Bird (APC, Dom., 1616-17, 
187). Upon return of this commission many 
particulars appeared which required further 
consultation and some order from the King or 
the Board, so the Lords referred the matter to 
a select committee to consider such matters as 
concerned the military and civil government 
and report to the Board that the Lords might