The Board of Trade, not entirely satisfied by these opinions, addressed further queries to Northey and Cooke. 274 Although not specifically stated in his new reply, it is an ineluctable inference that the Advocate General was of the opinion that appeals would lie to the High Court of Admiralty in England from vice-admiralty court sentences enforcing the Acts of Trade in the plantations 275 Starting from different premises, Northey arrived at an opinion opposed to that of Cooke and generally hostile to the admiralty jurisdiction. 276 In short, the opinions chanted minor variations on a constant theme —the struggle for jurisdiction between the common law and admiralty courts. 277 While this question of appellate jurisdiction was being canvassed in connection with the jurisdictional dispute in Pennsylvania, it also was raised by several conciliar petitions. In September, 1701, the owner of the Rebecca, upon petition to the Council Board, received leave to appeal from a Barbados Vice- Admiralty Court sentence condemning his vessel as unregistered. 278 At the same time an appeal from the condemnation of the Experience and Susanna The proprietor also wrote: "I fancy his [Quary's] wings will be clipped in admiralty matters every day, upon the appeals from the colonies against admiralty judgments; they are set by here upon hearings before the Committee of Appeals, whereof Lord Chief-Justice Holt and [obliterated] Trevor are members" (ibid.). 274 When the joint answer of Cooke and Northey was read at the Board on July 10, 1702, Cooke was desired to attend the Board (CSP, Col., 1702, #745). When he attended accordingly, further queries were decided upon, and Cooke was desired to advise with the Attorney General therein in order to the return of their joint opinion (ibid., #748). One query was whether the courts of viceadmiralty in the plantations had any further jurisdiction than was allowed of or usually exercised by the Admiralty jurisdiction in England, and what that jurisdiction was (ibid., #751). 275 Reviewing the jurisdictional clauses in the various Acts of Trade and Navigation (12 Car. 11, c. 18; 15 Car. 11, c. 7; 22 and 23 Car. 11, c. 26; 7 and 8 William 111, c. 22), Cooke concluded that the Admiralty jurisdiction in England in offenses against the Acts of Trade was as extensive as that of the plantation vice-admiralty courts, and that such jurisdiction in England was identical with that of the courts of Westminster Hall. The important step in Cooke's reasoning was that the admiralty courts in both places were the King's courts and consequently courts of record, relying upon a 1632 declaration of all the judges (ibid., #778). But the cited agreement of 1632 is silent upon the point in question; see 1 Benedict, op. cit., #640. 276 The opinion of Northey assumed that Admiralty courts were not courts of record and that suits being in courts wherein no essoin, protection, or wager of law was allowed limited suits to common law courts. This resulted in a denial of any jurisdiction to the vice-admiralty courts under some of the statutes. The 1696 law gave no jurisdiction to the Admiralty Court in England for any offense in unlawful trading to or from the plantations, for suits under this enactment had to be brought in the Queen's courts of record at Westminster (CSP, Col., 1702, #889). No direct statement was made as to appeals, but as a necessary corollary they would not lie to the High Court of Admiralty. 277 As to the result of the controversy in Pennsylvania, note that a later act (1715) in the colony directing appeals to Great Britain allowed appeals to the King in Council from the "courts of Admirality." But there was no limitation to causes arising under the Navigation Acts (Charter and haws Prov. Pa. [1879], 355)- 278 The petition for leave to appeal (see PC 1/46) was referred to the Committee (PC 2/78/249); upon Committee report (PC 2/ 78/256) the appeal was admitted by the Council, and ordered heard on the first June, 1702, Council day, with the usual directions about security and transmission of proceedings (PC 2/78/256). A bond of £500 was entered into to prosecute accordingly.