letters. These conciliar instruments issued in fewer numbers than in Elizabethan times; most of them concerned allegations of hard usage or inability to secure justice. 231 In addition to correcting judgments of the island courts, the Board acted in an administrative capacity as regards these courts. It settled disputes where conflicting claims were made to judicial appointments 232 or judicial precedency. 233 It reviewed the suspension of a jurat, 234 ordered the election of a new jurat to replace a perverse incumbent, 235 and ordered an investigation into the actions of a complained-of jurat. 236 It also acted to prevent delays in the operation of the judicial machinery below. 237 That the Board did not look upon complaints made to it with an unfavorable eye is indicated in the costs awarded successful complainants. The Board might itself assess such costs upon report of referees 238 or might give general directions to the court below for the allowance of reasonable costs. 238 Some of the complaints heard by the Board entailed a great number of references and a very tedious course. 240 In these causes the habitual petitioner might be discouraged by the necessity of giving security in the islands before a petition could be safely presented to the Board. 241 The rising storm of domestic commotion during the later years of the reign of Charles precluded conciliar occupation with appeals or any other matters from the Channel Islands. Entries relating thereto in the Privy Council register after 1640 are scarce. 242 The operation of 16 Charles I, c. 10, would account for some diminution, in that complaints were barred thereby. As has been said previously and as is borne out by conciliar entries, the act was not conceived as prohibiting appeals to the Council from Jersey and Guernsey. 243 Despite the loss of records for the initial years of the early Stuart period and the distractions of the closing years, certain features stand out. The machinery for handling appeals remained similar to the earlier period, but there was a 231 See APC, Dom., 1613-14, 453 (hard usage); PC 2/39/425 (undue practices); PC 2/42/62 (deprivation of property); APC, Dom,, 1621-23, 235 (inability to prosecute cause in ordinary course of. justice); PC 2/39/ 423 (inability to secure performance of contract to marry); PC 2/46/124; PC 2/48/143 (inability to secure justice locally); PC 2/43/ 437; PC 2/44/367; PC 2/46/294, 295 (hard usages of creditors). 232 See APC, Dom., 1613-14, 621; ibid., 178, 287. 233 See ibid., 1627, 450; PC 2/39/33. 234 APC, Dom., 1621-23, 351- 235 Ibid., 1623—25, 355. 236 Ibid., 1618-ig, 457; ibid., 1619-21, 354. 237 See ibid., 1619—21, 63, 371; ibid., 1621— 2J, 15- 238 See PC 2/39/631; PC 2/40/246, 543; PC 2/42/181; PC 2/43/436; PC 2/44/41. 239 See PC 2/38/65; PC 2/39/665; PC 2/40/ 245. 240 The extended controversy between one Roberts and Peter de Lisle and Thomasina Priaulx can be traced through PC 2/41/60, 389, 476; PC 2/42/55, 92, 233, 327, 338, 401, 527- 241 See PC 2/50/110; PC 2/52/568 242 In 1644 the King in Council at Christ Church, Oxford, admitted an appeal after the usual time for entry had lapsed (PC 2/53/ 223). 243 But cf. CSP, Dom., 1641-43, 143-44, where some attempt was made to question the authority of the Council Board.