of the instructions. Likewise, the appellate jurisdiction of the Governor and 
Council in each of these colonies should be contrasted with that of the General 
Court (Governor and Council) of Virginia, where virtually no instructional 
minimum obtained. In the Leeward Islands the effect of the instructions was 
overcome by the liberalizing provisions of local statutes. Whether these acts 
resulted from disillusion as to instructional reform is problematical. Although 
their effect cannot be mathematically computed, there is no doubt but that 
the royal instructions must be included among the factors inhibiting appellate 
recourse. 
In rebuttal it may be advanced that refusal to lower the minimums for appeals 
to England forestalled complaints of the hardships imposed by such 
jurisdiction in small matters and attendant political unrest. The theoretical 
right of doleance was vitiated in practice by the disproportionate expenses 
inherent in such procedure. The failure to clarify the instructions as to appeals 
from the courts of chancery and the ordinary and the reluctance to 
perceive any problem in the case of appeals from vice-admiralty courts typifies 
the instructional administration of this period. Yet whether a more vigorous 
appellate jurisdiction in England and in the royal provinces would have been 
politically feasible is a question that admits of some doubt.