to For the most part these appeals were conditioned by time limitations 
for taking the appeal, by the posting of security by appellant and by the nonsuspension 
of execution on appeal. 1 In a few colonies appeals were allowed in 
misdemeanors, and then only when the fine exceeded 2 In several colonies 
were found instructions prohibiting appeals from the Governor and 
Council to the Assembly 3 and directing legislative delimitation of the appellate 
jurisdiction of the Governor and Council. 4 
The Stuart Committee founded its regulations upon the obvious premise 
that the important case was the one which involved a substantial sum, and it 
should be observed that this remained a cardinal principle. This and the other 
restrictions, such as the time limit and the posting of security, derive from 
earlier Channel Islands precedent, which in turn was probably in part based 
upon common law usage in error cases. The most noteworthy break with the 
traditions of Westminster Hall was the allowance of appeals de cursu in misdemeanors 
which at the time could in England be reviewed by writ of error 
only as a matter of grace. 
The seventeenth-century pattern of rules remained seated for more than 
fifty years, and the only important innovation effected by the Council shortly 
after 1696 was the abandonment of the governors' commission as a vehicle 
for appellate regulation. The 1697 commissions to the Earl of Bellomont for 
the provinces of New York and of New Hampshire and the 1702 commission 
to Governor Dudley of the latter province followed the pattern of the earlier 
New York commissions. 5 But apart from these few regulations by commission, 
the instruction became the instrumentality by which rules for appeals were 
laid down. This instrumental shift was not to the advantage of the casual 
litigant. Commissions were published, but instructions were "private rules, 
which are not to be communicated even to the respective Councils but upon 
1 See supra, p. 78 et seq. 
2 See supra, p. 84. 
3 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #446. Virginia 
still refused to take kindly to this instruction; 
see Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, 
The Present State of Virginia, and the College 
(ed. H. D. Farish, 1940), 26-28 and the 
proposal of Hartwell (CSP, Col., 1696-97, 
#1320). 
4 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #446. In New 
Hampshire an act of 1699 limited appeals from 
the Superior Court to the Governor and 
Council to cases in which the value appealed 
for exceeded sterling (1 Laws of N.H., 
66.4). The act was disallowed by Order in 
Council of November 19, 1706 (2 APC, Col., 
p. 847), but is alleged to have been regarded 
as in force until 1791 (1 Laws of N.H., 660). 
The instruction directing restrictive legislation 
was continued until 1728; see 2 ibid., 234, 
410. For execution of the instruction in Virginia, 
see injra, p. 259 et seq. 
5 See 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 269; 1 
Laws of N.H., 615-16; 2 ibid., 8. The terms 
of the two New Hampshire commissions were 
supplemented by provisions in the instructions 
as to appeals; see 1 ibid., 630; 2 ibid., 26. The 
terms of the New York commission were supplemented 
by an additional instruction (1701) 
that appellant before admission of his appeal 
give good and sufficient security effectually to 
prosecute the same (1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, 
The provisions of the New 
Hampshire commissions were given statutory 
form by a 1699 act (1 Laws of N.H., 665) 
later disallowed; see supra, p. 175.