of the crown, except Great Britain and Ireland, an appellate jurisdiction in 
the last resort was vested in the King and Privy Council upon principles of 
feudal sovereignty. Upon what principle did the exception in the favor of 
Ireland rest? According to Coke, by virtue of a statute confirming letters 
patent of John, ordaining in right of dominion by conquest, that Ireland should 
be governed by the common law of England. 441 "If thus, the common law of 
England obtaining in Ireland, emancipated, as it certainly did, the originally 
conquered inhabitants of the territory from the King's appellate jurisdiction 
upon principles of feudal sovereignty, the English colonies and settlements in 
America must, a fortiori, be equally emancipated by the same operation of the 
Common Law, first established in most of them, by acts of their Assemblies, 
and now in all by the late doctrine, that the law is the inherent natural right 
of any English settlement in America." But instead of enjoying the same rights 
as Ireland the colonies were "upon a footing with the most trifling appendages 
of the British crown," the Channel Islands. 442 
It should be noticed that in the same year of Drayton's attack, counsel for 
the appellant in the argument of Campbell v. Hall in King's Bench, maintained 
that the jurisdiction of the King in Council as the ultimate judicature 
for the plantations was "unconstitutional and void." The practice of a century 
and a half was asserted to be based upon reservation of appeals in early charters 
and the early Stuart concepts of the royal prerogative. 443 Counsel for respondent 
replied that when colonial charters were granted, it was competent for 
the crown to prescribe the mode of appeal which necessarily lay in some form 
in all the variety of disputes concerning the rights of the colonies. Narrowly 
as the prerogative had been looked into, this exercise had never been questioned 
as unconstitutional. But it would be time enough to decide that question 
when a writ of error should be brought before King's Bench to reverse 
a colonial decision or a rehearing moved to examine a conciliar decree. As a 
practical consideration such unprecedented practice would constitute a considerable 
acquisition to the business of King's Bench. 444 
Not all criticism of conciliar appellate jurisdiction was stilled by the American 
Revolution. Based in part upon the experience of the period under consideration, 
the suggestion was made in 1789 as to the Bahamas that appeals 
be made directly to the King in Council from the Supreme Court, eliminating 
441 Drayton, op. cit., 35-36. The Coke support 
is at First Institute, 141. 
442 Drayton, op. cit., 36-38. The attack upon 
the integrity of the South Carolina judiciary 
contained in this pamphlet evoked a storm of 
protest, but the question of appeals was not 
entered into. See 38 MS. So. Car. Council 
Journals, 1773-74, 183-85, 208-17, 230-37. 
443 20 Howell, State Trials, 274, 276. Cf. the 
statement that all prerogative writs would 
run to the plantations as to the counties palatine 
of Chester and Durham, (ibid., 272). 
Aii lbid., 280-81. Cf. the remark of counsel 
for appellant (ibid., 286).