tion was upheld, since appellant failed to prove that Calvert had licensed the 
ship to trade in Maryland. 441 The Maryland charter contained no appeal reservation 
442 and normally appeals from the Provincial Court were made to 
the Upper House of the General Assembly, 443 but apparently no opposition 
was made to the jurisdiction of the King in Council in this instance. In a 1672 
Barbados cause, respondent was given the alternative of a rehearing before 
Lord Willoughby and some of the Council of Barbados or attendance on the 
King in Council for decision in the cause. 444 
In two 1672 cases the Council for Foreign Plantations was regarded as the 
body to which application should be made to secure a representation to the 
King advising relief in cases of unlawful seizure. 445 But no authority is found 
in the instructions of that Council for exercise of such jurisdiction. 448 After 
the establishment of the initial Council for Trade and Plantations, in September, 
1672, some causes were referred by the Privy Council to this body to consider 
and report. 447 This appears to have been ad hoc supplementation of the 
standing instructions of this body. 448 The available evidence indicates that 
determinations of this body were not reached in a manner associated with 
appellate judicial hearings. There is nothing to indicate that both parties were 
heard on appeal, and certainly the consideration of a cause was not restricted 
to any record made in the court below. 449 It would appear that an effort was 
441 PC 2/62/218, 246. Cf. the earlier complaint 
from the colony that, "appeals to his 
Royall Majesty into England [were] termed 
criminall and denyed" (5 Md. Archives, 139). 
442 3 Thorpe, op. cit., 1677. 
443 1 Md. Archives, 481, 509-11, 513-22, 527- 
30; 2 ibid., 11, 13—14, 33, 59-60. 
444 Maynard v. White (PC 2/63/258). If he 
desired the latter alternative, White was to 
give security to appear and accept the decision, 
and to attend the King in Council within 
three months after notice. Cf. in connection 
with this cause CSP, Col., 1669-74, #349> 
843; ibid., 1675-76, #396. 
445 Petition of Clugstone et al. complaining of 
the seizure of the ship James by Sir Charles 
Wheeler at Nevis (CSP, Col., 1669-74, #813). 
Petition of Knight et al. concerning the seizure 
of the William and Nicholas by Wheeler 
at Anguilla (ibid., #823-24, 853). 
446 See Andrews, British Committees, Appen. 
11. 
447 Rabba Couty v. Beeston (CSP, Col., 1669- 
74, #968, 999) concerning the ship Trial 
condemned by a Nov. 23, 1671, sentence of 
the Jamaica Vice-Admiralty Court under authority 
of an act of Parliament, on finding 
that owner-petitioner was not a denizen; Smith 
v. Smith (PC 2/64/45) in which petitioner 
John Smith complained that by jury ignorance 
or corruption a verdict and judgment had been 
obtained against him in Nevis during his absence, 
and prayed an order to stay execution 
or award restitution and that Thomas Smith 
be ordered to England so that both parties 
might be heard before the King in Council, 
petitioner being willing to pay costs if judgment 
went against him. The latter petition 
was referred to the Council for Trade and 
Plantations to examine and report what was 
fit to be done for petitioner's relief (CSP, Col., 
1669-74, #1107, 1136). 
448 See Andrews, British Committees, Appen. 
111. 
449 In Rabba Couty v. Beeston, the Council 
for Trade and Plantations perused an exemplification 
of the sentence, heard Beeston who 
had rendered the sentence, and found that 
the sentence was grounded on the presumption 
that Couty, a Jew, was accounted a 
foreigner. But by certificates obtained by appellant 
from Governor Lovelace of New York 
after the trial below, it appeared that Couty 
had lived as a free burgher for several year*