fessed to have examined do not support this allegation. The commission issued to Jared Ingersoll, judge at Philadelphia, pursuant to this statute provided as follows: "saving always a right to any or either of the parties who shall think himself or themselves aggrieved, by such Vice-Admiralty Court at Philadelphia, in the first instance, or on an appeal to such Vice Admiralty Court, established at Philadelphia, to appeal either to us in Council, or to our High Court of Admiralty of England; and from thence to our High Court of Delegates, as usual." 331 Presumably the commissions to the other judges contained the same reservation. However, prior to 1783 we have seen only one appeal to the King in Council from these regional courts. 332 Whether a direct appeal to the King in Council from the older established vice-admiralty courts still remained is open to question. There is some evidence of a 1776 appeal from the court at St. John's, Newfoundland, directly to the High Court of Admiralty. 333 Similarly, an appeal directly to the King in Council would appear to have remained. At any rate, the Council Board retained direct appellate jurisdiction in appeals from the West Indian vice-admiralty courts. 334 A March, 1775, draft of a Parliamentary bill by Dr. Marriott, King's Advocate, provided that the course of appeals should be from the admiralty courts in America to the High Court of Admiralty and from thence to the King in his Court of Delegates or in Council without further review, any precedent or commission by letters patent to any judges of the vice-admiralty courts in America to the contrary notwithstanding. 335 This bill was never enacted. We have seen little on the matter of appeals to the King in Council from viceadmiralty courts in the non-American jurisdictions. However, as late as 1782 we find evidence that the King in Council was regarded as the appellate body for the vice-admiralty court at Minorca. 336 331 10 Pa. Archives (3d ser.), 381; Pennsylvania ]ournal #1025, Jan. 26, 1774. 332 Lynch v. Binney and Mowat, an appeal from the Halifax Vice-Admiralty Court (PC 2/122/31; PC 2/124/542, 570; PC 2/126/ 319. 347). 383 See D. M. Clark, The American Board of Customs, iy6y-J783, 45 AHR, 801, note 116, citing T 29/45/230. Some ambiguous statements may also be interpreted as supporting a direct appeal to the High Court of Admiralty. In 1773 Attorney General Kempe of New York stated that prior to the statutory establishment of a vice-admiralty court for all North America an appeal lay only to the High Court of Admiralty in England from the vice-admiralty court; see draft of a report to Governor Tryon on questions of the Board of Trade as to land tenure and the constitution of the province; Oct. 15, 1773, 2 Sedgwic\ MSS. In a report to the Board of Trade, Tryon accordingly stated that "an appeal lies to a Superior Court of Admiralty lately established in North America by statute; before this establishment an appeal lay only to the High Court of Admiralty in England" (1 Doc. Hist. N.Y., 756). 334 See Malloun v. Mashart (PC 2/116/331, 368); Alexander v. Stirling (PC 2/117/382, 392); Cruger v. Gamier (PC 2/121/23, 109, 131). 335 Heads of a bill for the better regulation of law proceedings in causes of seizure of ships and goods to be tried in the British colonies and plantations and elsewhere in His Majesty's dominions: and for amending an act of the 4th of his present Majesty (SP 37/11 [no foliation]). 336 PC 2/127/362.