made, 255 the Board of Trade ordered that the opinions of the crown law officers 
and of Sir Charles Hedges be taken in the matter. 258 Attorney General Trevor 
pointed out that there were express clauses both in the commission as viceadmiral 
and in the commission to the vice-admiralty judge allowing a right 
of appeal from any vice-admiralty court sentence to the High Court of Admiralty. 
Therefore Trevor was of the opinion that either party aggrieved by 
any vice-admiralty court sentence had a right of appeal to the High Court of 
Admiralty and that such appeal had to be allowed there. 257 Hedges was of 
the opinion that any subject aggrieved by Maryland Vice-Admiralty Court 
proceedings had by law a right to appeal to the High Court of Admiralty and 
that his appeal ought to be allowed. 258 The Board of Trade then informed 
Blakiston that they found no contradiction between the commissions as governor 
and as vice-admiral; but if any inconvenience should arise under these 
commissions, they would use their best endeavors to find fit remedies. 259 However, 
when the Maryland judicial organization was outlined to the Board of 
Trade in 1701, the same doubts as to the proper appellate body were declared 
to exist. 260 
The actual test of the problem arose at about the same time in Pennsylvania, 
where strong opposition to vice-admiralty courts existed. 261 Shortly after the 
establishment of a vice-admiralty court in that colony, several condemnations 
were made by Judge Robert Quary for violations of the Navigation Acts, 262 
England should be from the Governor and 
Council to the King in Council. It was thereupon 
advised that, if the master would first 
appeal to the Governor and Council, from 
thence an appeal might lie to the King in 
Council and not otherwise (25 Md. Archives 
57-58). For the record in the Johanna cause, 
in which an appeal to the High Court of Admiralty 
was allowed, see CO 5/714/ C 32. 
255 The Board of Trade made inquiry as to 
what proceedings had been made or directions 
given upon any appeal in the three seizures 
related by Governor Blakiston (CSP, Col., 
i6gg, but it appeared that no appeals 
had been designed or that they had 
been waived (ibid., #763). 
2 ™lbid., #796. 
257 Ibid., #797 11. 
258 CO 5/714/ C 38 
259 CSP, Col., i6 99 , #798 
260 CO 5/715/ D 66. But it was also stated 
that only one appeal had been taken and that 
not prosecuted—probably the fohanna cause; 
see supra, n. 254. Ambiguity is still existent 
in later Maryland history. Commissions to 
vice-admiralty court judges issued by Governor 
Sharpe in 1754 and 1760 and by Governor 
Eden in 1773 and 1775 contained an obscure 
appeal reservation, i. e., "saving nevertheless 
the right of appealing" (MS Md. Vice-Adm. 
Ct. Rec, 1754-75, ff- 2, 17, 75. 83). The only 
appeal recorded after 1754, from a 1764 condemnation 
under 7 and 8 Wm. 111, c. 22, 
failed to designate the appellate body (ibid., 
f. 52). 
201 For an account of the struggle in Pennsylvania 
see W. T. Root, The Relations of 
Pennsylvania with the British Government, 
1696-1765 (1912), c. iv. 
262 The sloop Jacob was condemned in the 
November 10-12, 1698, session of the court 
held at Newcastle, on the ground that the 
master and three-quarters of the crew were not 
English subjects (CSP, Col., 1699, #138 V; 
Root, op. cit., 101). The owner, Moorhead, 
declared that he appealed home to the High 
Court of Admiralty. Quary told him that before 
the appeal could be entered good security 
must be given, not only for what the sloop 
was appraised at, but also for all damages and 
costs of court. Moorhead refused at first, later 
became willing, but security was never given,