a further appointment of referees for Jersey and Guernsey appeals was made. 254 Under the Protector Richard an appointment was made of Commissioners of Appeals for Jersey and Guernsey. 255 A line was drawn between appellate jurisdiction and other Channel Islands matters, which were handled in a different fashion. 250 The need for lawyers to cope with appeals was obviously recognized by the Privy Council. Procedure upon appeal was by petition, the first step being the presentation of the petition of appeal to the Privy Council. The petition was then referred to the Committee for Petitions. 257 In some cases the petition then seems to have been referred by that committee to the designated appeal referees. Upon receipt of the report of the referees, the Committee in turn reported to the Council; if the Council approved the report, an order was issued thereon. 258 In other cases the petition of appeal was reported back to the Privy Council by the Committee as fit for reference to the appeal referees. The Council would thereupon send the petitions to the referees to report back to the Council. 259 In one case the Protector Oliver and his Council assumed the hearing of an appeal. 200 Another procedural possibility was for a cause to be returned to the islands for settlement by referees there 2el or for further hearing by the local judiciary before the referees decided the appeal. 202 But any ap- perhaps because of lack of jurisdiction {ibid., 1655-56, 149). 254 Channel Islands petitions concerning appeals made to the Protector from judgments given in the island courts were to be referred to Whitelocke and Widdrington, Treasury Commissioners, Lislebone Long, the Recorder, and John Sadler and Nathaniel Bacon, Masters of Requests, who were to receive all such appeals depending before the Council, learn the truth in the cases, and report thereon {ibid., 1657-58, 372). 255 Ibid., 1658-59, 306. 25,3 Ad hoc references were made {ibid., 1655, 37, 231, 292, 305, 399). Composition with delinquents in Jersey occupied the attention of the Council at this time; see Green, ibid., xv-xvi. References were also made to the Scottish and Irish committees {ibid., 1653-54, 401), to the Committee on the petition of the burgesses of Westminster {ibid., 1654, 65), to the Scottish Committee {ibid., 1657-58, 363). 257 For the order appointing the Committee of Petitions see ibid., 1655-56, 2. 258 gee the handling of respondent's petition in Gibault v. Le Tillier {ibid., 1655-56, 134); the recommittal to the Committee of the Patron and Anley petitions ( ibid., 144); the petition of Fautart for an appeal from a Guernsey judgment {ibid., 81). 259 Ibid., 1657-58, 372. 260 Wolsley, Sydenham, Strickland, Jones, and Lisle were ordered by the Council to see how the Guernsey appeal of Fautart v. Symons stood and report {ibid., 1657—58, 84). Upon their report it was ordered that the case be heard before the Council {ibid., 100). Upon a hearing and full debate of all the evidence, the Protector and Council saw no cause to differ from the judgment below {ibid., 107). 281 In de Carteret v. Dumaresq {ibid., 1657- 58, 119) Philip Le Geyt and five other Jerseymen named by the parties were to examine and determine all differences between the parties. In Dumaresq v. Pitton {ibid., 120) by consent the difference was referred to Governor Guibon of Jersey and five others who were to examine witnesses, give judgment and award costs, their sentence to be final. 262 In Fautart v. Symons {ibid., 1655-56, 188) the referees reported that they could not decide the matter without a trial at law; thereupon, a copy of the report was sent to the Guernsey Royal Court to examine witnesses on oath, test the truth of the matter, and report thereon. The return made was