reallocation of emphasis. More cases were determined by the Board itself and 
by the legal advisers; fewer cases were relegated to the decision of insular commissioners. 
Conciliar exercise of a determinative, judicial function became 
more frequent—the impression that the Board functioned largely as a clearing 
house is weaker. An embryonic committee system for Channel Islands matters 
appeared, but it assumed no important position in conciliar practice. Efficiency 
and dignity of operation were largely lacking—misrepresentations, evasions 
of conciliar orders, and insular recalcitrance constituted pitfalls for the unwary 
applicant to the Council Table. Regulations governing appeals from the isles 
were supplemented, but few procedural advances emerged in the practice of 
the period. 
THE INTERREGNUM 
During the Interregnum a curious interlude in the history of conciliar review 
is to be found. At one period the Privy Council attendant upon Charles II 
in his continental peregrinations undertook to hear and determine appeals. 
These appeals were from the Jersey Royal Court and were heard while Charles 
was at St. Germain (France) and in Jersey. 244 The procedure consisted of a 
preliminary petition for leave to appeal, followed by presentation of the appeal 
and a hearing thereon. 245 The scanty extant information indicates that the 
available councilors endeavored to afford the parties an adequate hearing. 246 
244 Charles II was present in Jersey from 
September 17, 1649, to February 23, 1649/50 
(2 Hoskins, Charles the Second in the Channel 
Islands [1854], 310, 375-77). Since Guernsey 
favored the Parliamentary cause (ibid., 311- 
12) it is doubtful whether Charles ever visited 
that isle during his exile (1 ibid., xi). The 
hearings held by the Privy Council outside 
the realm occur in the period from August 7, 
1649, to February 1, 1649/50. These appeals 
may have been brought from political considerations 
to allow Charles and his Council 
to exercise regal functions, they may illustrate 
the litigious quality of the islanders, or they 
may represent an honest need for appellate 
review. At any rate, they served to preserve 
the appellate tradition. Meetings were held at 
St. Germain (probably at the Lord Keeper's 
lodgings; see PC 2/54/18), St. Hillary (probably 
at the Lord Treasurer's lodgings; see PC 
2/54/10), and at Castle Elizabeth, the royal 
residence (see 2 Hoskins, op. cit., 317). Persons 
attending one or more of these meetings 
were the Lord Keeper, the Lord Treasurer, 
Lord Hopson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
Lord Culpepper, Secretary Long, Sir 
Edward Nicholas. Attendance varied from 
three (PC 2/54/18) to seven (PC 2/54/17); 
the latter meeting was the only one attended 
by the King and the Duke of York. 
245 See de Carteret v. Le Febure (PC 2/54/ 
6-8); Blundell v. Roualt (PC 2/54/18). 
246 In Blundell v. Roualt (supra, n. 245) before 
affirming a sentence of the Royal Court, 
the sentence and petition of appeal was read, 
the proofs formerly produced in the cause 
were examined and maturely considered, and 
counsel were heard fully. In Batterill v. Bisson 
(PC 2/54/20) a long and full hearing of both 
sides was held before sentence was reversed. 
Even where the appellant failed to prosecute 
an appeal, and the respondent petitioned for 
affirmance of the sentence below, the councilors 
considered the petition and sentence below 
with the evidence and proceedings therein, 
before affirming the sentence of the Royal 
Court (de Carteret v. Le Febure, PC 2/54/ 
10). In the same case the King, although satisfied 
with the judgment on appeal, said that 
he would rehear the appeal himself in Council. 
However, the hearing was later referred to 
Council members (PC 2/54/17).