it to the Solicitor General for his opinion, since there was "much matter of law 
therein." 435 His report was read, approved, and ordered to be communicated 
by Willoughby to the Barbados judges, signifying the royal pleasure that in 
any new ejectment brought by appellant the proceedings were to be according 
to the report of the Solicitor General. 438 In Vines v. Collins, in 1668, Lord 
Willoughby was directed by the Council to consider the allegations of a petition 
from Barbados complaining of a wrongful condemnation in the Admiralty 
Court, and if sustained, to appoint a time for a rehearing of the whole 
matter. 437 In Bradbourne v. Bea\e, in the same year, a petition complaining of 
a judgment based upon an ex parte report of auditors was ordered sent to 
Willoughby to do justice therein. If the complaint appeared well grounded 
and no relief had been afforded, the Council was to be informed of the reasons 
thereof, that further order might be made upon application. 438 In Middleton 
v. Chamberlain we find recognition of the practical rule that colonial judicial 
proceedings should not be judged by English standards. 439 
In some cases, however, the Council Board itself heard causes. In a Maryland 
case, following the procedural preliminaries of a petition, answer, and reply 
thereto, the litigants were heard by the King in Council. After listening to 
counsel for the petitioner and for Lord Baltimore, the proprietor of Maryland, 
another hearing was appointed at which Charles Calvert, the deputy governor 
who had condemned the ship in question, was heard in answer to the petitioner's 
allegation. 440 At the first hearing the Council was of the opinion 
that the sentence was erroneous, but upon the second hearing the condemna- 
cerning the patent making no provision for 
appeals (1 MS Coll. Letters, Patents, Charters 
and Commissions Relating to Trade and 
Foreign Plantations, 355 [L.C.]), since the 
patent of the Earl of Carlisle had been previously 
assumed by the crown (Harlow, 
History of Barbados, 1625-85 [1926], 13 1_ 
32; Williamson, The Caribbee Islands under 
the Proprietary Patents [1926], 211-12). 
435 PC 2/61/422. 
436 PC 2/62/49. 
437 PC 2/60/147. Appellants complained that 
their ship Hopewell had been condemned by 
Henry Willoughby, Deputy Governor of Barbados, 
by private order contrary to admiralty 
law, that appellants being at a distance failed 
to take their appeal within fifteen days and 
were thus barred from an appeal; a rehearing 
before Lord Willoughby was therefore prayed. 
438 PC 2/61/68; CSP, Col., 1661-68, #1852. 
439 In his report in Middleton v. Chamberlain 
{supra, n. 435) Solicitor General Finch stated 
that certain errors were assigned by the trustee 
of the appellant, but were not heard, "and I 
conceiue that they were only Errors in forme, 
and ought not to weigh, if they had been 
heard, it being impossible that the Pleadings 
and Entryes at Barbados should be so exact 
in forme as the Pleadings in Westminster 
Hall" {PC 2/62/49). See also CSP, Col., 
1669—74, #112, where it was asserted that 
judicial proceedings in Barbados should be 
summary, without formality, since it was 
impossible that proceedings there should be 
the same as in England. In connection with 
this attitude, note the hostility to the legal 
profession expressed in the Jamaica rules of 
court {ibid., #604 I). 
440 Gookin v. Calvert {PC 2/60/256, 305, 356, 
369). The cause involved the condemnation 
of appellant's ship for violation of a Navigation 
Act, 15 Charles 11, c. 27. For the proceedings 
in the Provincial Court in January, 1665/ 
6, against the Hopewell see 49 Md. Archives, 
560-63. For sale of the ship following condemnation 
see 57 ibid., 10.