in the Antigua Vice-Admiralty Court was sought, but the petition disappeared 
after reference to the Committee. 279 At the same date a further conciliar petition 
was presented by one Samuel Barron complaining of a March, 1700/1, 
condemnation of the ship America by Governor Codrington of the Leeward 
Islands, reversing a court of vice-admiralty sentence. Petitioner set forth that 
an appeal had been taken originally to the High Court of Admiralty, but 
having been since advised to appeal to the King in Council, allowance of such 
an appeal was prayed. 280 The Committee to which the petition was forwarded 
to examine and report whether the petitioner could be admitted to an appeal, 
advised in December, 1701, that the sentence appealed from be declared null 
and void and the petitioner restored to possession of the ship and cargo or the 
value thereof. The rationale of the advice was that no appeal lay from the 
court of vice-admiralty to the governor. 281 
As a result of these causes, the Council became inquisitive as to the jurisdictional 
basis of the vice-admiralty courts in the plantations. The Board of 
Trade was therefore ordered on December 18, 1701, to determine from the 
various governors whether such courts in their respective colonies were held 
by virtue of judicial commissions from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty 
or of commissions under the Great Seal empowering establishment 
of such courts. 282 The Board of Trade encountering delays in obtaining the 
requested data, 283 the Committee meanwhile did not see fit to hear the appeal 
279 PC 2/78/257. 
280 PC 2/78/258 
281 PC 2/78/281, 286. A similar case is found 
in the case of In re Swan, in which William 
Mead petitioned for leave to appeal from a 
sentence of the High Court of Admiralty at 
Antigua (rendered by Governor Codrington 
as Principal Judge and Commissary of the 
Leeward Islands) of March 20, 1700/1, reversing 
a Nevis Court of Admiralty sentence condemning 
the Swan for illegal trading (PC 
2 /78/3°3)- The Committee advised that the 
sentence appealed from be declared null and 
void and that possession of the ship and cargo 
or the full value thereof be restored to appellant. 
An Order in Council issued as advised 
(PC 2/79/41). It is not apparent in these 
two cases whether Codrington was acting in 
an appellate capacity by virtue of his gubernatorial 
commission (see infra, n. 283) or by 
virtue of a commission as vice-admiral. Some 
evidence points to the latter in that the term 
"Commissary" is found therein; see 2 Pub. Col. 
Soc. Mass., 379. See also the statement by 
Codrington, injra, n. 283. 
282 CSP, Col., 1701, #1094. 
283 The circular letter is set out at ibid., 1702, 
#197. It was alleged by conciliar appellant 
Symcocks in a May, 1703, petition that Governor 
Codrington of the Leeward Islands was 
the sole correspondent (ibid., 1702-3, #745). 
This official replied that he acted "by a Commission 
under the seal of the Admiralty," 
conceiving that he could legally act by no 
other. As to reasons, he wrote, "I shall only 
use the authority of Sir Charles Hedges, who, 
after a very solemn argument by the best 
advocates in the Commons, reverst sentence 
past by Father, not because it was not just, 
but as coram non judice, because he had not 
then an immediate power from the Admiralty, 
but acted by virtue of a clause in his Commission 
under the Great Seal" (ibid., 1702, 
#570). However, it was replied from Barbados 
that the Vice-Admiralty Court was held 
"by virtue of a power given to Lord Grey by 
a Commission from His late Majesty under 
the Great Seal of the High Court of Admiralty" 
(ibid., #504). From Jamaica, it was 
answered that the court was held by virtue of 
the clause in the governor's commission 
authorizing the establishment of courts (ibid.,