wise, in 1765 we find Governor Pinfold of Barbados assuming that the proper remedy was by appeal to the High Court of Admiralty. 320 Blackstone stated that appeals from plantation vice-admiralty courts might be brought before the English Admiralty Courts, though they might also be brought before the King in Council. 321 But Blackstone failed to limit the King in Council's appellate jurisdiction to Acts of Trade cases. In 1764 a vice-admiralty court for all America was established at Halifax, Nova Scotia, exercising concurrent original jurisdiction with the established vice-admiralty courts, 322 but without any appellate jurisdiction. 323 The commission to Judge Spry reserved an appeal to the High Court of Admiralty. 324 By a clause in the Stamp Act (5 Geo. 111, c. 12, s. 58) this court at Halifax was given appellate jurisdiction in Acts of Trade cases over the other established vice-admiralty courts. But this jurisdiction was terminated with the repeal of the Stamp Act (6 Geo. 111, c. 11). It has been asserted that the Privy Council declared in 1766 that "the proper jurisdiction in England is in his Majesty in. Council," 325 But this is an erroneous ascription of conciliar force to a mere party allegation in a case where an appeal had been mistakenly taken to the Lords Commissioners for Prize Appeals. 326 In 1768 an act of Parliament was passed authorizing suits for all forfeitures and penalties under any Acts of Trade relating to the plantations in any court of vice-admiralty appointed or to be appointed in the colonies having jurisdiction over the place of occurrence. 327 Under this act appeals were to be allowed from the established admiralty courts to any vice-admiralty courts appointed or to be appointed which should have jurisdiction; no other provision was made for appeals. 328 Courts were ordered established in 1768 by the authority of this act at Halifax, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston. 329 This statute has been interpreted by a well-known lay historian as forbidding "further right of appeal to England ... as the new courts were to act as courts of last resort." 330 The admiralty records which this writer has pro- 320 MS Pinfold Letters, 1764-66, 74. 321 3 Blackstone, Commentaries, 69. But this view is said by Browne to have been relinquished (2 op. cit., 493). 322 House of Lords MS, 226/39-56. For Parliamentary mention of such establishment see 4 Geo. 111, c. 15, s. 41. 323 House of Lords MS, 226/21-25, 46-48. S2i lbid., 49-56. 325 Andrews, Introduction to Rec. Vice-Adm. Ct. R. 1., 1716-1752, 22. 326 See Furlong v. Smith (PC 2/111/705; 4 APC, Col, #657). 327 8 Geo. 111, c. 22. Cf. the views of Jared Ingersoll in 2 Fitch Papers, 18 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 335-36. Massachusetts agent De Berdt stated that the act "seems to me strangely inconsistant, as it gives an appeal to a second court in the colony where the offense may be committed, when there is no such thing as a second court, or more than one in the same colony" (Letters of Dennys De Berdt, 1757-1770, 13 Pub. Col. Soc. Mass., 33i)- 328 8 Geo. 111, c. 22, s. 2. 329 5 APC, Col., #74. The statement of Sellers (Charleston Business on the Eve of the American Revolution [1934], 191) that the court at Boston had appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate vice-admiralty courts is obviously without support. 330 See 4 Andrews, Colonial Period, 271.