A question arises whether this conciliar policy of only taking appeals from 
the highest plantation court could be pursued in the face of a charter provision 
allowing appeals from "any judgment" 68 or of an approved colonial act allowing 
appeals from "any court" in the province. o9 We have, however, seen no 
discussion of any such conflict. 70 This conciliar policy probably was intended 
to strengthen the colonial judicial systems, but it might work hardship where 
difficulty was encountered in obtaining a quorum in the colonial appellate 
court. 71 
An instructional clause which failed to prove satisfactory in operation was 
the requirement that execution be not suspended by reason of any appeal to 
a judicature properly superior to that of the 
Earl of Derby (according to the reason and 
practice of the civil law in like cases) was 
sufficient to prevent any lapse of the time for 
appealing to the Lord of the Isle, who is the 
intermediate judge." Further, "if the refusall 
of the appeale by the Lord of the Isle was 
erroneous (as we take it to be) the jurisdiction 
of reviewing and examining the sentence 
in the original cause does now by reason of 
that refusall appertain to your Majesty in 
Council" (PC 2/88/511). For further papers 
in this cause see Christ Church College MS, 
257/1-5. 
68 See the Pennsylvania charter provision as 
to appeals (Charter and Laws Prov. Pa., 85). 
69 See the 1722 Pennsylvania Act for Establishing 
Courts of Judicature in this province 
(ibid., 391). 
70 Perhaps the Macarell appeal (supra, p. 60) 
is explained by the Pennsylvania charter provision. 

71 In Orby v. Long (1708) Sir Charles Orby 
et ux. petitioned the Council that an adverse 
judgment had been rendered in the Supreme 
Court of Jamaica in August, 1706; that upon 
appeal to the Governor and Council (Court 
of Errors), three of the council were statutorily 
disabled from hearing the appeal as factors in 
the African slave trade (9 and 10 William 111, 
c. 26, s. 20) and three others as judges below 
(see supra, p. 219), so that no quorum could 
be obtained under the royal instructions. Petitioners 
thereupon appealed from the Supreme 
Court judgment, praying reversal (PC i/Ri/ 
147). A Committee report indicates that Long 
et ux. alleged that sufficient councilors were 
now available in Jamaica to hear the appeal, 
so that it would be improper for the Privy 
Council to hear it. Petitioners replied that only 
five of the twelve councilors were qualified to 
hear the appeal and that it was utterly despaired 
of assembling these five unless the 
King gave directions in the matter (PC 2/ 
82/279). It was then ordered in Council that 
the Board of Trade propose to the King the 
names of two other persons duly qualified to 
be councilors who might make a sufficient 
number to hear the cause (PC 2/82/285). The 
Board of Trade recommended that the governor 
be required to order all council members 
who were slave factors either to quit that 
occupation or the council; that the governor 
be empowered to swear into the council three 
proposed members to fill possible vacancies if 
removals from the council were necessary 
(CSP, Col., IJOB-9, #453). The advice was 
accordingly adopted (PC 2/82/301). Cf. 
Russell v. Clarke where respondent complained 
that a writ of error taken to the Governor 
and Council of Jamaica from a Supreme 
Court judgment was only for delay of justice, 
a sufficient quorum being unobtainable for 
the same reasons as above (PC 2/82/155). 
Before considering the matter the Committee 
sent the petition to the Governor and Council 
asking them to return a true state of the matter 
with their opinion as to what should be done 
for petitioner's relief (PC 2/82/173). See also 
CSP, Col., iyoB-g, #174, 382, 453. On the 
subject of slave factors and colonial officers see 
2 Documents Illustrative of History of the 
Slave Trade in America (ed. E. Donnan, 
IQ 3i)> 99-100. Edward Long (1 The History 
of famaica, 174-76) proposed in 1774 that in 
all suits by or against council members an 
appeal should lie directly to die King in Council 
from the judgments of the inferior courts. 
Such reformation plus assignment of certain 
times of the year for sessions of the Court 
of Errors would take away the principal sources 
of the general complaint "that it serves only 
the purpose of a dungeon for the incarceration 
of justice."