to the Queen in Council, the amount involved being under the instructional 
appeal minimum. 40 Upon representation of the Society for the Propagation 
of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 41 it was ordered in Council that in cases 
wherein the church was immediately concerned liberty was to be given to 
appeal to the Governor and Council from inferior courts without any limiting 
minimum, similarly from thence to the Queen in Council. 42 The terms of 
this Order in Council were embodied in a letter under the sign manual of 
February, 1712/3. 43 After a tedious course at law, 44 Poyer was successful to 
some degree in asserting his rights; 45 seemingly this letter under the sign 
manual was never utilized by any beneficiary thereof. 
There is some later scattered discussion of the appealable minimum. Thus, 
in 1727 the South Sea Company unsuccessfully petitioned that the governor 
of Jamaica be instructed to admit appeals in all cases wherein that company 
was concerned, regardless of the amount involved. 46 Again, in 1731-32, it was 
40 3 Eccl. Rec. N.Y., 1964. This apprehension 
of a denial of justice was characterized as 
groundless; since the actions would be above 
,£2O in value, they would be tried by Chief 
Justice Mompesson, of known orthodox religious 
views {ibid., 1905-6, 1920). It was 
also alleged that Poyer refused offers of Governor 
Hunter to bear the expenses of legal 
prosecution of the claims in order to effect 
his recall, as not partial enough to the established 
church, or to gain orders directing 
favoritism toward the cause of that church 
{ibid., 1910). Cf. ibid., 1914. But by March, 
1711/2, Poyer had brought an action of 
ejectment for the parsonage house and glebe, 
albeit without design of prosecuting to effect 
{ibid., 1923). 
41 5 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y. 345-46; 3 
Eccl. Rec. N.Y., 1963-64. The representation 
insinuated that it was not the royal intention 
that subjects should be excluded from the 
benefit of appeals in cases in which, although 
the matter in demand did not exceed the 
required minimum, the loss sustained in consequence 
thereof amounted to a much greater 
value, especially where the judgment was 
against one of the clergy. The representation 
was forwarded to the Board of Trade {PC 
2/83/451) ■ Colonel Cleland and Colonel 
Nicholson from the Society attending the 
Board, the latter urged that it would be no 
disadvantage if the clause relating to appeals 
were left at large in matters relating to the 
crown or to the rights of the established 
church QCTP, 1708/9-14/5, 377). On November 
13, after some discourse on the 
matter before the Board, the representatives 
of the Society acquiesced in a recommendation 
that the clergy be allowed appeals to the 
Governor and Council without minimum restrictions 
{ibid., 388-89). A representation was 
accordingly drafted and signed {ibid., 394). 
42 5 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 352-53. The 
representation of the Board of Trade upon 
which the Order in Council was based only 
recommended that the Queen "allow the 
Clergy liberty of appealing from the inferior 
courts to the Governor and Council only without 
limitation of any sum." 
43 3 Eccl. Rec. N.Y., 1990-91. 
2044, 2113, 2126. See also SPG to 
Poyer, Nov. 17, 1718 {SPG MSS, A 13/434); 
Poyer to David Humphreys, Feb. 23, 1718/9 
{ibid., 439). 
45 One judgment was had in 1719 (3 Eccl. 
Rec. N.Y., 2136), another in 1722 {ibid., 
2213). For the significance on appeal of the 
special verdict in the former Supreme Court 
judgment, see infra, Chap. VI. Cf. Poyer to 
SPG, May 24, 1723 {SPG MSS, A 17/256). 
46 It was represented that in the case of duties 
on the company's negroes no one action might 
ever reach the appealable minimum, although 
the consequence of the determination on all 
the company's ships might affect the company 
in ten times the amount of an individual action. 
Further, if appeals were so allowed, it 
might check the repeated practice of passing 
laws contrary to the royal instructions {CSP, 
Col., 1726-27, #305). See also JCTP, 1722/ 
3—28, 332. The background of the application 
is seen in the Nov. 9, 1727, minutes of the