matters and Channel Islands affairs were delegated to one conciliar committee 
426 In July, 1670, the earlier advisory Council for Plantations was revived 
42T and in September, 1672, it was strengthened by the addition of 
jurisdiction over matters of trade. 428 In December, 1674, the commission of 
this body was revoked, and plantation affairs reverted to the care of the Privy 
Council Committee for Trade and Plantations. 429 Then in February, 1674/5, 
Charles by commission confirmed jurisdiction of these matters in that committee 
430 As we have already seen, in 1679 this committee also became a 
Committee for Jersey and Guernsey. 431 
None of these transient schemes of colonial administration made provision 
for exercise of an appellate jurisdiction over colonial courts, yet this jurisdiction 
was not for this reason declined. Although there was much agitation in 
New England concerning the right of appeal to the King in Council or to 
Parliament, the first "appeals" came from the West Indian possessions. These 
"appeals" were not true appeals, as they came to be known later, but were 
rather "petitions in the nature of an appeal." 432 For convenience of terminology 
we shall refer to this petitionary species as appeals. There is no evidence 
that the Council Board conceived of itself as acting in a judicial, rather than an 
administrative capacity in handling them. That in several cases relief was 
sought against an executive acting in a judicial capacity may have obscured 
the nature of the function performed. It should be noticed, however, that the 
various Restoration committees and select councils established to deal with 
plantation matters did not exercise jurisdiction in appellate matters until 
1672. 433 Judicial determinations were thus largely confined to the Privy 
Council itself and to colonial executives by delegation therefrom. 
There was no fixed procedure employed by the Council Board to settle these 
early causes. In a 1666 appeal from Barbados, Middleton v. Chamberlain, the 
Board after reading the petition of the appellant ordered Lord Willoughby, 
the Barbados governor, to examine the matter and certify to the Council the 
true state thereof, together with the laws and customs of that plantation in such 
cases. 434 Upon return of the report of Lord Willoughby the Council referred 
426 Supra, n. 407. 
427 Andrews, British Committees, 97. 
i2B lbid., 106-7. 
*2S> 3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 228. 
is °lbid., 229. 
431 Supra, p. 65. 
432 For contemporary use of this terminology 
see Smith v. Smith (CSP, Col, 1669-74, 
#1146). 
433 A Committee for Hearing Plantation Appeals 
may have existed (see Andrews, British 
Committees, 80), but we have seen no evidence 
of or reference to its operation. 
434 Middleton v. Chamberlain (PC 2/59/198). 
It does not appear from what court the appeal 
was taken. The appellant alleged that Chamberlain 
sat on the bench at the trial, that 
respondent's brother was the jury foreman, 
and that the rest of the jury were "friends and 
creatures of their own procuring." But it is 
difficult to reconcile the latter part of this 
allegation with the statement that many of 
the jurors objected before judgment, but could 
not be heard. No question could arise con-