would tend to subvert the government if once admitted; furthermore, that 
there never had been any such precedent of an appeal allowed, either in 
Jamaica or in any of the King's dominions beyond the seas. 407 
THE RESTORATION APPELLATE SYSTEM FOR THE 
CHANNEL ISLANDS AND THE COLONIES 
Having pursued the concatenation of recalcitrance to a logical stopping 
place, we must retrogress to pick up other narrative threads. One task facing 
Charles II and his Council upon the Restoration was the re-establishment of 
the appellate system for Jersey and Guernsey. Another was to provide an administrative 
system for the plantations. It shall be our task to show how attainment 
of these objectives ultimately resulted in the location of appellate jurisdiction 
over both Channel Islands and plantations in one body. 
Within a few months after the return of Charles II to England and his assumption 
of the rights and the duties of the crown, the question of Privy 
Council jurisdiction over Channel Islands matters was mooted. 408 But it was 
not until January, 1660/61, that the first appeal from these islands was entered 
409 The Interregnum and its disturbances were reflected by Orders in 
Council confirming judicial proceedings in the islands during that period, but 
permitting aggrieved parties to appeal within the usual time following the 
date of publication of the order. 410 These orders opened the conciliar floodgates 
to a rush of Jersey appeals. 411 The initial appeal presented for adjudication 
was first referred to lawyers, then after a hearing before the King in 
Council, to an ad hoc committee. Upon its report an issue of fact was ordered 
tried in Jersey. 412 Shortly, however, to cope with the large number of appeals 
407 CSP, Col., i66g-y4, #1150. This declaration 
may be explained by the doubts surrounding 
the proper appellate jurisdiction over colonial 
vice-admiralty courts —a doubt not yet 
dispelled decades later. See infra, p. 177 et seq. 
408 The petition of two merchants was referred 
to the consideration of Wiseman, the 
King's Advocate, to inform the King whether 
any affairs concerning the inhabitants of the 
islands of Jersey and Guernsey had been or 
might be determined by any court of judicature 
in the kingdom but by his Majesty's 
Privy Council (PC 2/54/67). 
409 Dumaresq v. de Carteret (PC 2/55/84). 
410 PC 2/55/175 (Guernsey), 178 (Jersey). 
411 Twenty-four such appeals are entered 
within six months of the date of the order; 
the majority in one day, August 7, 1661 (PC 
2/55/323-26). Guernsey appellate business 
was practically nonexistent; for the first mention 
see Rozell v. Bouillon (PC 2/55/366). 
412 Le Breton v. Esnouf. Examination of the 
appeal was referred to Dr. Zouch, judge of the 
High Court of Admiralty, Dr. Mason, Dr. 
Walker, or any two of them, who were authorized 
to summon the parties before them 
and upon hearing the cause, to state the matter 
of fact and their opinion thereon to the 
Board (PC 2/55/145). The Board then ordered 
the sentence referred to four referees 
to settle or certify the cause to the Board. 
This order was objected to by appellant, so 
the King in Council ordered the parties to 
attend the Board, with counsel if desired, for 
hearing and determination of the appeal (PC 
2/55/318). Counsel were heard by the Board, 
"but in regard the case betweene them was not 
truly stated," a further hearing was referred 
to the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Chamberlain, 
the Earl of Anglesey, Lord Holies, the Vice- 
Chamberlain, Secretary Nicholas, and Secretary 
Morice. Dr. Mason and Dr. Walker, the