it would appear that if the royal instructions were conceived to extend to chancery appeals, their enforcement was scarcely Draconian in nature. The only other colony in which we have found evidence of judicial rules is Barbados. In the records of the Court of Errors of that island we find an appeal granted to the King in Council in 1763 "on the plaintiff giving the usual security according to the practice of the court." 288 From the records we have seen of the Barbados Court of Errors it seems unlikely that the judicial function was there exercised as competently as it was in its Jamaica counterpart. VICE-ADMIRALTY APPEALS We now turn from discussion of the various regulations of common law and chancery appeals in an endeavor to find some answer to the question of what regulations governed conciliar appeals from colonial vice-admiralty courts. The language of the gubernatorial instructions would seem scarcely applicable to such appeals. Yet in a 1767 appeal from the Antigua Vice-Admiralty Court it was alleged that the governor had been restrained from granting an appeal by the instructional minimum, thereby necessitating doleance procedure. 289 An instance of attempted application of a governor's instructions to viceadmiralty court proceedings is found in New York in September, 1727, when appellant in a prize appeal endeavored to have respondent give security according to the recent circular instruction. But Judge Harrison disallowed the motion and ordered appellant to give security agreeable to the provisions of 6 Anne, c. 37. 290 While the instant case concerned a prize appeal, not an appeal to the King in Council, it reveals that application of gubernatorial instructions to vice-admiralty court sentences was considered a procedural possibility. A minor element was regulation by colonial act, as in Pennsylvania 291 In the case of the inapplicability of gubernatorial instructions and the absence of local legislation, what rules governed ? Were the rules of the civil law applicable ? We have seen no conciliar appeal in which strict civil law regulations Chaplin (April 12, 1731; ibid., 1727-34, m). Security was given in Strachan v. Philp (Nov. 6, 1732; ibid., 161-62). 287 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #449. 288 Adams v. Touchett (MS Mins. Barbados Council, 1760-66, sub Nov. 1, 1763, in Pinfold MSS, L.C.). 289 Payne v. Abdy. It was related in the conciliar Cases that since the condemned vessel was appraised at only the governor was restrained by his instructions from allowing the appeal (Add. MS, 36,220/144, 146). See also PC 2/111/320, 323, 343, 477. 290 N orr ; s v. Four Casks, etc., o£ Spanish Snuff (1 MS Mins. Vice-Adm. Ct. Prov. N.Y., 1715—46, 87). For the circular instruction referred to see 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #450. On the confusion engendered by the terminology of 6 Anne, c. 37, s. 8, see supra, pp. 186-87. 291 See Charter and Laws Prov. Pa., 355. Although this act was disallowed, apparently, as we have seen, it remained in force in the province (supra, p. 249).