That this is not merely coincidentally double the judgment can be shown. 197 
Evidence from the Privy Council Register is no less confusing. 198 
In the three Lower Counties on the Delaware an act was passed under 
Lieutenant-Governor Gordon for establishing courts of law and equity which 
contained the same provision regulating appeals as the 1727 Pennsylvania 
act. 199 This provision was also included in the 1760 act for the better regulation 
of the Supreme Court. 200 Since no act from the Lower Counties was ever submitted 
for royal approbation, these acts escaped the fate of the Pennsylvania 
prototype. 
In the chartered and proprietary colonies there was little danger of legisla- 
tive appellate regulation conflicting with royal instructions, since these instructions 
were seldom dispatched to such colonies. But in the royal colonies local 
legislation might conflict with, reproduce, or supplement instructional regulation. 
In some instances the Board of Trade directed legislative bodies not 
to pass statutes covering matters already settled by the royal instructions. 201 
Presumably such confirmatory enactments were regarded as a lessening of the 
royal prerogative. 202 As a matter of convenience, statutory embodiment, if 
confirmed by the crown, prevented alteration by the prerogative alone if the 
occasion arose; for, as stated by the Board of Trade in 1731, "an Act of Assembly 
cannot be repealed whatever inconveniencys may ensue from it without 
the consent of the people." 203 In this declaration the Board was following 
a 1722 opinion of the crown law officers distinguishing between the force of 
the royal prerogative in mere conquered countries and in colonies granted 
legislative powers. 204 
A vigorous presentation of the view that the domain covered by instructions 
was posted against intrusion is found in a report by Attorney General Northey 
upon a 1715 Leeward Islands act for judicial establishment and regulation 
of the administration of justice. It was represented that this act contained 
several regulations of appeals and writs of error to the King in Council, an 
But Hurst v. Kirkbride, the next appeal after 
Streiper v. Logan {supra), was granted upon 
£1,000 security (MS Appearance Docket, Pa. 
Sup. Ct., 1772-74, 252). 
1" See the Rumsey and Carroll fines, supra, 
n. 196. 
198 From the mention of an eighteen-month 
prosecution limitation, the 1722 act is apparently 
intended in Pike v. Hoare, where reference 
is made to an Act of the "Assembly of 
Philadelphia" (PC 2/114/488) and again to 
an "Act of Parliament" (PC 2/114/694). 
1" Laws of the Government of New Castle, 
Kent, and Sussex upon Delaware (1741), 42-43. 
200 1 Laws State Delaware, 1700-1797 (i797)> 
376-77. 
201 See CSP, Col., 1712-14, #395- 
202 Francis Fane, legal adviser to the Board of 
Trade, was asked for his opinion "whether 
the Assembly's taking upon them to confirm 
what His Majesty has done by virtue of His 
Majesty's said prerogative, is not lessening His 
Majesty's said prerogative" (ibid., 1728-20, 
#758). 
2 »3 3 APC, Col., #238. 
204 1 Chalmers, Opinions, 222-23. Cf. Cann> 
bell v. Hall (1 Cowper, 204).