it was ordered by circular instructions in March, 1726/7, that in all cases where appeals were admitted to the Privy Council execution was to be suspended until conciliar determination of the appeal, unless good security were given by respondent to make ample restitution of all appellant lost by means of such judgment in case of appellate reversal and award of execution. 70 This instruction was sent to virtually all the colonial governors, including those of the proprietary and chartered colonies. 77 It was then incorporated in the standing instructions. 78 The issuance of this instruction did not ipso facto root out the evil. In the colony of Jamaica it was apparently often disregarded, for in 1743 it was necessary for the Lords Justices in Council to declare that every appeal from any order, decree, or judgment of any Jamaica court to the King in Council was an immediate supersedeas to any proceedings under such order, decree, or judgment unless security was given as required by the instructions. 79 How- upon reversal, prayed that execution be stayed upon his giving the usual security (ibid.). The Attorney General advised that the May, 1720, act be confirmed and the repealing act be disallowed, but submitted whether the petition should be granted as in effect making new law for a particular case (6 ibid., #318, contained in PC 1/47)- However, the Committee recommended, and it was so ordered, that Lowther be allowed to appeal even if the damages were under £ 500 and that execution be respited until Gordon gave full security both for restitution of the judgment sum, if necessary, and for payment of costs and damages (2 APC, Col., $1310). The May, 1720, act was also objected to by one Anthony Crachrode, Chief Clerk in the Barbados Chancery, as a diminution of the profits of his office held by royal patent, since security bonds were to be given in the Secretary's Office. The act was also termed dilatory and expensive to the inhabitants (CSP, Col., 1720-21, See also the memorial of Whitworth, the Secretary of Barbados (ibid., #465). The Board of Trade, upon consideration of the several memorials and a report of Richard West and upon hearing the parties and Lowther, were of the opinion that the act deprived Crachrode of no established fee and that it was useful and for the public service (JCTP, 1718-22, 269, 293, 296-97). The act was thereupon represented as proper for confirmation (CSP, Col., 1720-21, #576) and was accordingly confirmed (3 APC, Col., #13). For pamphlet background for the Gordon- Lowther dispute consult Wm. Gordon, A Sermon Preached before the Governor, Council, and General Assembly of the Island of Barbados (1717); A Representation of the Miserable State of Barbados (1719); The Barbados Packet; Containing Several Original Papers: Giving an Account of the Most Material Transactions That Have Lately Happened in a Certain Part of the West Indies (1720); The Self-Flatterer: or, The Art of Complimenting One's Self (1720); A Letter from an Apothecary in the West Indies, to the Author of the High-German Doctor In England (1720). 76 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #450. Cf. JCTP, 1722/3-28, 282, 284. We have seen no support for the contention that the instruction was the result of Rhode Island practice (Keith, Constitutional History of the First British Empire, 307). The instruction was not even dispatched to this colony. 77 None was sent to Barbados, since the matter was already provided for by local act confirmed by the crown {supra, n. 75), or to Massachusetts, since the matter was covered by a provision in the charter (1 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 15). 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #450. For the instruction to a proprietary colony see 1 Pa. Archives (Ist ser.), 196. For some discussion of the question whether a royal instruction was binding upon a Pennsylvania governor under the charter see infra, p. 604. 78 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #449. 79 This declaration was made in connection with the Order in Council in Philp v. Crawford (PC 2/97/460) and was based on a Com-