the reference process in matters of law might be substantially shortened by the 
Council Board's taking the opinion of the crown law officers directly. 165 If 
the gravamen of an attempted appeal consisted of complaint against colonial 
executives, then such executives might be afforded opportunity to answer the 
petition for leave to appeal before admission was granted. 166 Other variations 
existed in that the decision whether an appeal should be admitted could be 
left to a colonial governor 167 or a trading company. 168 The Lords Committee, 
however, refused to exercise jurisdiction over petitions for leave to appeal, 
without a reference from the Council Board. 169 
It appears that for the most part these petitions for leave to appeal were 
considered in an ex parte manner, by both the Privy Council and the Committee 
170 Furthermore, the records of the proceedings below were not usually 
before either body when admission of an appeal was under consideration, for 
in many orders admitting appeals it was directed that the record below be 
transmitted. 171 From the very uncontested nature of this procedure one would 
properly in the imposition of a fine on 
Samuel Hanson, but seemingly admitted an appeal 
without awaiting such opinion (CSV, Col., 
1681-85, #480. 484)- 
165 In Hubbard v. Smailes, the petition for 
leave to appeal was referred to Attorney General 
Treby to examine and having heard all 
parties concerned to report to the King in 
Council how he found the same together with 
what he conceived fit to be done thereupon 
(PC 2/73/300). Treby reported that he had 
examined the matter and heard the parties, that 
respondent had secured a judgment in 1688, 
but that "an appeal from such judgment at 
Bermuda doth of right lye to your Majesty in 
Council; and that has been the constant course 
and practice in cases of this nature." He had 
tried to accommodate matters in vain, and 
therefore advised that petitioner should either 
pay over the money in question or give security 
for an appeal. The Order in Council followed 
the Attorney General's report (PC 2/73/424). 
166 Captain Francis Mingham, in a petition to 
the Council, complained of the condemnation 
of the pink Francis on January 22, 1678/9, in 
the Jamaica Vice-Admiralty Court held by Sir 
Henry Morgan, and prayed a rehearing before 
the King in Council. Copies of the petition 
were ordered sent to Morgan and Thomas Martin, 
the Receiver General, to return their answers 
thereto with copies of the Vice-Admiralty 
Court proceedings in the cause (PC 2/67/225). 
The answers are set forth at CSP, Col., 1677— 
80, #1304, 1429. See also the procedure in the 
several criminal appeals, infra, pp. 107-8. 
16T Governor Kendall, en route to Barbados in 
1689, was ordered to allow an appeal to one 
Ralph Lane, provided such appeal was consistent 
with his instructions and the island law 
{PC 2/73/243). Lane had complained of imprisonment 
by Lieutenant-Governor Stede for 
taking an appeal to the King in Council. See 
infra, pp. 107-8. But the appeal was admitted 
by the Council upon a report from the Committee 
(PC 2/75/50), which had been petitioned 
by one Bushell in Lane's behalf (CSP, 
Col., 1689—92, $"2570, 2645—46). 
168 In February, 1690/1, James Twyford et 
al., owners of The Society, complained of a 
Virginia condemnation of some elephant teeth. 
The petition was referred to the Royal African 
Company to answer if they had any objection 
why an appeal should not be allowed (CO 
391/7/3-4; CSP, Col, 1689-92, #822). 
169 In October, 1685, Richard Young and 
Samuel Hanson petitioned the Committee for 
an appeal from a Barbados judgment on a 
bond, but were advised to petition the 
King that the matter be referred to the consideration 
of the Committee (CO 391/5/207). 
170 But cf. the procedure in Hubbard v. 
Smailes, supra, n. 165, and CO 39T/7/152, 
219. 
171 Raynesford v. Gorges (PC 2/71/280);