The importance of such an interpretation is that it seemingly resolved the 
question as to the final appellate tribunal. It specifically granted an ultimate 
appeal to the King in Council from a vice-admiralty court sentence. Furthermore, 
it made it highly unlikely that an appeal would be taken from the 
Governor and Council to the High Court of Admiralty. Yet chapter and verse 
for such confusion of appellate jurisdiction is found in the proceedings following 
upon a seizure made by Jahleel Brenton in New England under 15 
Charles 11, c. 7, and a condemnation by the Court of Assistants at Boston in 
February, 1689/90. Lawrence, master of the condemned Salisbury, was granted 
an appeal to the High Court of Admiralty, giving security to prosecute 
with effect and answer all damages and costs awarded. 109 In December, 1691, 
the court declared that it had been intended to grant the appeal to the King in 
Council and ordered the entry amended according to this intent. 110 But the 
petition and appeal had already in the previous July been referred by the King 
in Council to the Lords Committee. 111 In January, 1691/2, the bond given to 
prosecute the appeal before the High Court of Admiralty was ordered canceled, 
since an end of the affair had been made with the Commissioners of the 
Treasury, to whom the appeal should have been properly made! 112 
Our principal interest in the vice-admiralty courts centers about their jurisdiction 
over seizures under the Navigation Acts. This jurisdiction was neither 
exclusive nor even uncontested. 113 Since the proceedings in such seizures were 
criminal in nature, 114 in some instances trials were had in special Courts of 
Oyer and Terminer. It remains for us to examine the appellate review possible 
in such cases. 
The case of the St. fago de la Victoria illustrates a review process combining 
both Privy Council and Governor and Council. In 1689 this Dutch-owned ship, 
109 1 Rec. Ct. Assistants Mass. Bay (1901), 
342-44. 
110 Ibid., 360-61 
111 PC 2/74/219; CSP, Col., 76*9-92, #1678. 
112 PC 2/74/319; see also CSP, Col., 1689-92, 
#1902, where appellant petitioned for a reference 
of the appeal to the Commissioners of 
Customs. 
113 Under 12 Charles 11, c. 18, forfeitures 
could be sued for in "any court of record by 
bill, information, plaint, or other action 
wherein noe essoigne protection or wager in 
law shall be allowed." Under 13 and 14 
Charles 11, c. 11, forfeitures could be sued for 
in the Exchequer or "any other His Majesties 
courts of record." These statutes gave rise to a 
controversy whether vice-admiralty courts were 
courts of record; see Crump, op. cit., 131-32. 
Under 15 Charles 11, c. 7, forfeitures could 
be sued for in "any of His Majesties Courts 
in such of the said Lands, Islands, Colonies, 
Plantations Territories or Places where the 
Offence was committed, or in any Court of 
Record in England." This in turn raised the 
question whether or not admiralty courts were 
"King's courts" (ibid). Cf. 3 Naval Tracts 
of Sir William Monson (Navy Rec. Soc. Pub., 
ed. M. Oppenheim, 1913), 427-29. A further 
complication arose from the provision of 13 
and 14 Charles 11, c. 11, s. 13, that in all actions 
for forfeitures for unlawful importations or exportations 
there should not be any party jury, 
but such only as were natural and free born 
subjects of the King. Customarily admiralty 
courts did not employ juries. But despite all 
these objections, suits under the Acts of Trade 
were brought in admiralty courts. 
114 See CSP, Col., 1700, #574; 4 H. of L. 
MSS (n.s.), 1699-1702, 352; 1 Wynne, op. 
cit., lxxxvi.