Trade, to which the matter was referred, sought the opinion of the Attorney 
General whether the Queen might hear the appeal and direct the Nevis proceedings 
to be transmitted accordingly. 289 On this query, Attorney General 
Northey was of the opinion that if the court which rendered the judgment 
complained of was held as a court of admiralty under the late King's commission 
for governing the Leeward Islands or if the sentence was given by 
the President and Council as a council board, then the appeal in both cases 
ought to be to the Queen in Council. But if the court was held by authority 
derived "from the Admiralty of England," appeal was to the Court of Admiralty 
of England, "and soe it was lately determined by Her Majesty in 
Councill." 290 The Board of Trade, on June 13, 1704, quoting this opinion, 
advised a letter to Governor Mathew directing inquiry into the matter, and 
if it were found that the court had been held by virtue of the late King's commission, 
ordering transmission of authentic copies of the proceedings in order 
to a hearing before the Queen in Council. If the court should be found to have 
been held by authority "from the Admiralty," petitioner was to be left to 
proceed as in cases belonging to the Admiralty. 291 Such a letter was ordered 
by the Council and dispatched. The answers returned afforded little information, 
and the cause was allowed to fade from the Council's attention. 292 
In a report of the Board of Trade delivered to the House of Lords on 
November 30, 1704, the following statement was made concerning the establishment 
of vice-admiralty courts in the colonies: 
"The Courts of Admiralty in the plantations are constituted by commission 
under the seal of the Admiralty of England, the powers of erecting Courts of 
prayed to oppose. The Commissioners stated 
as to the grounds of the seizure that negroes 
were considered as goods within the meaning 
of the Navigation Acts; as to any permission 
of or collusion by the government, the Commissioners 
were uninformed {ibid., #666). 
The Board of Trade informed the Earl of 
Jersey of its belief that Vanbelle was not innocent, 
but well versed in methods of illegal 
trade; that it was not fit to stop any suit relating 
thereto now in progress; that if it 
finally appeared that the governor had acted 
contrary to his duty, Vanbelle could have 
remedy at law or the King could punish; that 
if after judgment either party should feel 
themselves aggrieved, an appeal would then 
be open from thence to the King (ibid., 
#685). 
2sa CSP, Col., 1704-5, #319. 
290 2 Chalmers, Opinions of Eminent Lawyers 
(1814), 227; CSP, Col., 1704-5, #337- 
Schlesinger (28 Pol. Science Quart., 283, note) 
naively assumes that the distinction based upon 
the authority by which the court was held 
solved the problem of the correct appellate 
jurisdiction. 
291 CSP, Col., 1704-5, #387. 
292 PC 2/80/139; CSP, Col, 1704-5, #460, 
969, 1137. Lieutenant-Governor Johnson found 
it difficult to discover any records in the cause, 
but the general tenor of his communication 
upheld the sentence. As to the point in question, 
he wrote that he found "it has been 
allwaies practicable for the Generall, or in 
their absence or death, for the Governors or 
President and Councill of Nevis to hold Courts 
of Admiralty in their proper persons, if they 
think fitt, and then and their preside and 
determine causes."