may be attributed to the extensive use made of other administrative bodies, 
such as the Board of Trade, the crown law officers, the Lords Commissioners 
of the Treasury, and of the Admiralty, and so forth. It should also be noted 
that the Committee of the Whole made little attempt to compartmentalize its 
diverse activities—domestic matters and colonial matters were heard at the 
same meeting, and judicial functions were exercised in juxtaposition to executive. 

Thus, it may be generalized that the conciliar structure in the eighteenth 
century was trichotomous in form —the three components being the Council 
Board, the Committee of the Whole, and the Irish Bill Committee. But as the 
century progressed there was a noticeable tendency for these three bodies to 
merge into one. There are found numerous cases in which the Committee of 
the Whole, upon completion of its tasks, resolved itself into a Council Board 
and transacted matters within the province of that Board. 32 Usually the matters 
transacted after the transforming resolution were of a formal nature, 
wherein time was of the essence. 33 In some fewer cases the Irish Bill Committee 
similarly resolved itself into a Council. 34 In some instances these two 
operations were reversed—the Council resolving itself into committee form. 35 
We have already seen that the respective jurisdictions of the two committees 
were not rigidly maintained. 38 
The Council itself remained for the most part a nondeliberative, formal 
body. Its dual functions were the direction of matters presented to the Council 
to the proper deliberative body and the infusion of executive force into decisions 
arrived at by such bodies. In only a few early cases did hearings in 
matters judicial take place before the Council Board. 37 To some degree this 
mittee of all those present, with the addition 
of two absent councilors (PC 2/94/628). On 
December 17, 1738, the Committee referred 
to the crown law officers papers relating to the 
establishment of courts of judicature in Gibraltar 
to draw up a scheme thereof and lay 
it before the subcommittee appointed to consider 
the same (PC 2/95/83). On the same 
date four additional members were added to 
the subcommittee (PC 2/95/84). On June 
22, 1739, there was a meeting of the "Subcommittee 
of the Lords of the Council appointed 
to Consider of .Establishing Courts for 
Civil and Criminal Causes at Gibraltar" (PC 
2/95/241). The report of this subcommittee 
is at PC 2/95/308-14 (August 2, 1739)- 
32 2 Turner, op. cit., 397 et seq. For some examples 
see PC 2/101/187, 352, 447, 449; PC 
2/102/91, 398, 413, 472, 485, 506. It would 
be tedious to enumerate all the examples of 
this type of transition; for instance, in PC 
2/103 there are nineteen examples, in PC 
2/114, twenty-three. 
33 For the most part the business done after 
these titular transitions consisted of releasing 
ships from quarantines or embargoes and 
granting passes for shipment of gunpowder. 
34 See PC 2/102/450; PC 2/100/560; PC 2/ 
101/500; PC 2/103/517; PC 2/106/62, 109. 
35 See, for example, PC 2/109/41, 120, 192, 
212, 226, 267, 378, 390, 414, 441, 457, 55 2 - 
But most of the Council registers do not contain 
as many transitions. 
36 See supra, p. 136. 
37 Two of the appeals of Jahleel Brenton from 
Massachusetts Bay judgments were heard before 
the King in Council (PC 2/77/55). The 
"appeals" of Nicholas Bayard and John