usually craved that a day be set for a hearing and that all parties be summoned 
to attend. It was not required that the petition and appeal be signed by counsel 
as in chancery appeals to the House of Lords. 3 The wording of this petition 
and appeal was important, for the petition was the initial document read at 
the Committee hearing, and the reversing or affirming Order in Council 
usually embodied the petition with conciliar additions and emendations in a 
manner reminiscent of Parliamentary legislation during the fourteenth century. 

When the petition and appeal had been settled in its final form by the solicitor, 
and perhaps by counsel, it was left at the Council Office in Whitehall. It 
was also customary for appellant to deposit the tenor of the record under seal 
at the Council Office 4 —at what stage of the proceedings does not appear. The 
clerk of the Council in the normal course of conciliar routine then presented 
the appeal at the Council Board, where following perfunctory reading it was 
automatically referred to the Lords Committee to examine, hear, and report. 
We have seen that most royal instructions directed that appellant post security 
to "effectually prosecute" his appeal. 5 This term, "effectually prosecute," in 
the royal instructions gained content from conciliar usage to mean conciliar 
presentation within a period of a year or a year and a day." A seeming corollary 
was that no respondent could be compelled to enter an appearance to an ap- 
Esq., the governor of the said island, setting 
forth that they were agrieved by the said 
judgment and praying that all the said proceedings 
might be brought before the said 
governor and the council of the said island; 
to the end that the errors in the same might 
be corrected, and the judgment so as aforesaid 
given for your petitioner might be reversed. 

"Accordingly all the said proceedings were 
brought before the said governor and council, 
and upon the nineteenth day of February 
1707 it was carryed that the judgment given 
in the said cause in the court below should 
be reversed and ordered that judgment should 
be given for the plaintiffs in error. And afterwards 
on the 16th of March 1707 the said 
council did order that the judgment given in 
the said cause by the Court below should 
be reversed, and judgment given for the 
said John Robinson and thereupon a writt 
of possession did issue and the said John 
Robinson hath been put into the possession of 
the said plantation and premises. Against 
which order & proceedings of the said Council, 
your petitioner did pray to be admitted 
to his appeal to your most sacred Majesty, 
and accordingly he was admitted, and all the 
parties have had due notice and copies of 
the records and proceedings are transmitted 
under the seale of the said island. 
"May It Therefore Please Your Majesty 
to appoint a day for hearing and determining 
your petitioner's said appeale. 
And your petitioner shall ever pray etc." 
For other petitions and appeals see Add. MS, 
36,216/22-23 (Moore v. Ford); PC 1/58- 
B/B2 (a) (Axtell v. Clarke). 
3 Macqueen, A Practical Treatise on the Appellate 
Jurisdiction of the House of Lords and 
Privy Council, 776; 2 Jacob, Compleat Chancery-Practiser 
(1730), 642. 
4 Francia v. Hope, Case of Respondent (Add. 
MS, 36,217/90). For the formula for certification 
by the chief clerk and authentication by 
the governor see Add. MS, 35,914/189-90. 
5 See supra, pp. 81, 215. 
6 For the origin of the conciliar practice see 
supra, p. 77. In Adams v. Sturge, a Barbados 
appeal, it was alleged that by the royal 
instructions party appellant was to give security 
to prosecute his appeal within a year 
(Case of the Appellant, Add. MS, 36,217/172). 
Compare the statement of general conciliar