in the case of In re Rebecca until the information had been supplied. 284 Finally, 
upon appellant's persistent petitioning, the Board of Trade was ordered to 
bespeak Lord Grey, governor at the time of seizure and then present in town, 
and return an opinion in the matter. 285 The Board, upon considering the 
matter, 286 reported that they found that the colonial vice-admiralty courts 
were constituted by virtue of commissions from the crown under the seal of 
the High Court of Admiralty for the trial of marine causes, and causes relating 
to breaches of the Acts of Trade pursuant to the Act for Preventing Frauds 
and Regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade, and that all appeals without 
distinction, as well in causes marine as in others, did always lie before the 
King in Council as the easiest, most expeditious, and least expensive method 
for the inhabitants of the plantations concerned in appeals. 287 But there is 
no further record of the appeal In re Rebecca before the Council. 
These various opinions did not serve to settle the question of appellate jurisdiction 
over the plantation vice-admiralty courts. In 1704 one Peter Vanbelle, 
in a petition to the Council, complained of the condemnation of some slaves 
by the Nevis Vice-Admiralty Court in May, 1699, from which sentence petitioner 
appealed, and prayed directions to the governor to examine the allegations 
and to return the true state thereof, together with copies of the proceedings, 
in order to a hearing before the 
#743). From New York, Lord Cornbury 
wrote that the first regular Court of Admiralty 
was established by Colonel Fletcher by virtue 
of a warrant from the Lords of the Admiralty 
empowering him to appoint a judge, register 
and marshal for the Court of Admiralty; 
that in Bellomont's time there was a commission 
from the "Lord of the Admiralty" appointing 
Colonel Smith judge; that since then 
Atwood had brought over a commission from 
the Lords of the Admiralty constituting him 
Admiralty Court judge {ibid., #1005). 
284 Ibid., 1702-3, #745. 
285 PC 2/79/395. 
286 See CSP, Col., 1702-3, #794, 803, 879. 
There is nothing to indicate Lord Grey was 
consulted, but see the answer from Barbados, 
supra, n. 283. 
287 Ibid., #890. The views expressed by 
Andrews in 1 Cambridge History of the 
British Empire (1929), 297, are divorced from 
reality. This writer declares that appeals "at 
first without distinction were directed to the 
King in Council. When it was made clear that 
the courts were held by virtue of a commission 
under the seal of the Admiralty, the Privy 
Council ruled that appeals should lie to the 
High Court of Admiralty." 
Queen in Council. 288 The Board of 
288 pq 2/80/77. For the earlier history of this 
cause, it is necessary to retrogress to 1699. On 
July 13 of that year a petition of Vanbelle was 
referred to the Board of Trade by the Earl 
of Jersey. In this petition denizen Vanbelle 
alleged purchase of a plantation in St. Christopher 
and, upon inquiry as to importation 
of slaves, information that the governor would 
permit importation in foreign bottoms, since 
there were no English ships at St. Thomas. 
Petitioner made the importation accordingly, 
but the Collector seized the slaves on the 
ground of importation in foreign vessels contrary 
to the Navigation Acts, only releasing 
them on security. In the interim the 
governor collusively revoked the permission 
granted, so petitioner prayed royal protection 
(CSP, Col, 1699, #648). The Board of 
Trade sought information in the matter of the 
Commissioner of Customs (ibid., #650-51), 
who forwarded the version of Mead, the 
seizing collector. From his reports it appears 
that an appeal for England was prayed even 
before judgment given, when the opinion of 
the court was known that the slaves would 
be condemned; that Vanbelle was resolved 
to use his interest in England to reverse the 
judgment, which the Commissioners were