formal function was present in the work of the Lords Committee, since many 
matters were referred by it in turn to subordinate bodies, particularly the 
Board of Trade. But barring the few cases mentioned above, appeals in chief 
were invariably heard before the Committee —the Board of Trade was limited 
to reporting on ancillary questions in the appellate field. 
The appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council, following the administrative 
reorganization of 1696, is most conveniently studied in terms of what we 
conceive to have been the most salient policy developments. First, we have 
the initial drive to impose appellate control upon the chartered colonies. Concomitant 
was the task of buttressing appellate review in the royal colonies, 
particularly New Hampshire. Following this we shall examine later vestiges 
of recalcitrance in the chartered colonies. We also shall make inquiry whether 
administrative experience with the chartered colonies was reflected in newly 
issued charters. We shall then diverge to observe the initial exercise of appellate 
jurisdiction over other jurisdictions of the crown outside the realm—the Isle 
of Man, Minorca, and Gibraltar. Returning to the colonies, we shall examine 
the use made of the disallowance in preservation of conciliar jurisdiction, the 
problem presented by appeals from colonial vice-admiralty court sentences, 
and the self-imposed limitations upon the Council's judicial powers. Lastly, 
we shall consider the political assaults made upon the jurisdiction of the King 
in Council in the era preceding the American Revolution. 
THE PROBLEM OF THE CHARTERED COLONIES 
The keynote of the early years of the new administrative system was sounded 
by Governor Fletcher of New York in a statement that "it is apparent that the 
stronger these colonies grow in parts the weaker we are in the whole, every 
little Government setting up for despotic power and allowing no appeal to 
the Crown but valuing themselves in their own strength and on a little juggling 
in defeating all commands and injunctions of the King." 38 These words 
were singularly prophetic, and the newly reorganized administration at Whitehall 
was soon to savor their bitterness as first of all it came to grips with Massachusetts 
Bay. The clause in the 1691 charter saving appeal to the crown had 
failed to effect a change of heart in the refractory Puritans, who now devoted 
their energies to the restriction of appeals to the precise letter of the charter. 
This matter was initially controverted in connection with attempted enforcement 
of the Acts of Trade in Massachusetts Bay by Jahleel Brenton, Col- 
Hutchins from New York sentences were also 
heard by the King in Council (PC 2/79/295). 
Later in Bishop of Sodor and Man v. Earl of 
Derby appellants petitioned to be heard before 
the Council Board rather than the Committee 
(PC 2/88/263). Such hearing accordingly took 
place before a Council Board of seventeen, but 
the appeal was dismissed nevertheless on procedural 
grounds (PC 2/88/282). 
SS CSP, Col., 1696-97, #14.