was found anciently when the isle was vested in the crown in dispatching commissioners 
to the island to administer justice. 231 
In addition, it was argued that there never had been an appeal from the Isle 
of Man to the King in Council except by the appellant's ancestors. In that instance 
the King had intervened, but not by way of appeal. 232 If appeals were 
received, it would cause the King in Council much trouble and suitors much 
expense. Since insular proceedings were not formal enough to determine according 
to the transcript of records, in most cases arising there it would be 
necessary to attend the Privy Council with witnesses. The Council would thus 
squander its time in trying a multitude of issues more proper for inferior courts 
than for conciliar cognizance. 233 
The Committee, unmoved by respondent's arguments, decided to proceed 
upon the merits of the cause at the next meeting. 234 Chief Justice Parker reportedly 
was of the opinion that the King in Council necessarily had jurisdiction 
in order to prevent a failure of justice. He took notice that if a copyholder 
sued by petition in the lord's court and judgment was given thereon, 
no appeal or writ of error would lie on such judgment, but the Court of 
Chancery would correct the proceedings in case anything were done therein 
against conscience. 235 After hearing counsel on the merits, the Committee advised 
reversal of the decree appealed from and award of the estate in dispute 
with appurtenances to appellant. This was thereupon ordered in Council. 236 
Appellate jurisdiction over Minorca and Gibraltar was never seriously questioned 
237 
APPEALS AND DISALLOWANCE 
We have thus far considered the development of the appellate authority via 
judicial proceedings and certain administrative measures employed to reinforce 
this authority and to combat colonial resistance. There remains to be 
231 Rawlinson MS, C 441/59-64. 
232 Rawlinson MS, C 441/47. The royal intervention 
referred to here took place in 
1662-63 upon the complaint of William 
Christian that he was imprisoned by the Earl 
of Derby, contrary to the Act of Indemnity, 
for alleged treason committed in 1651 against 
the Countess of Derby. The King in Council 
ordered petitioner to be brought up for hearing 
before the Council Board, but Christian had 
been tried and executed before the conciliar 
order reached the Earl of Derby. Nevertheless, 
it was ordered that Christian's confiscated 
estate be restored to his heirs; that others 
similarly imprisoned and their estates confiscated 
be released and their estates restored; 
that the officers of justice pay all expenses; 
that the judges who decreed the death sentence 
be proceeded against. See the references to 
the case in CSP, Dom., 1663-64, PC 2/56, 
and PC 2/57. 
233 Rawlinson MS, C 441/47. 
234 PC 2/85/466. 
235 j p eere Williams 329. But this report of 
the appeal is severely criticized by Lord 
Brougham in Regina v. Alloo Paroo (5 Moore 
P.C. 296, 302-3). 
236 pc 2/85/473, 482. Respondent Corren 
later asked for a review of the cause on the 
ground that certain of his evidence introduced 
below had been wrongfully excluded by the 
Committee {Rawlinson MS, C 441/55-57). 
237 See infra, pp. 267-68.