In the majority of cases these petitionary applications met with success, but breach of instructional conditions might be regarded as of ill consequence. 63 There was no rigid temporal limitation upon the presentation of doleances. 64 Allegedly, when an appeal was granted upon doleance it was the usage to give security immediately and to present the petition and appeal by the next council day at the latest. 86 A certain laxity surrounded doleance procedure. Although conciliar routine required an Order in Council to admit an appeal upon doleance, in at least one case the Committee, omitting this step, proceeded immediately to hear the appeal. 66 In some instances we find it alleged that appeals not taken below were entered in the Council register without any doleance preliminaries. 67 It was also attempted, with varying success, to use doleance procedure in cases in which no appeal had been applied for and denied below. 68 were to attend at an appointed time to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted and to be prepared for a hearing on the merits in case of admission (PC 2/81/ in, 115). When the papers ordered transmitted arrived, the Committee heard the matter and advised dismissal of the petition; the sum involved being under £300, the Massachusetts court could not have admitted the appeal. It was also advised that petitioner be at liberty to petition again upon the equity of his cause if he saw fit (PC 2/81/358). 63 In Cowes v. Sharpe application was made in April, 1701, for leave to appeal from an April 28, 1693, Barbados chancery decree. No appeal had been taken at the time, because of alleged legal and economic disabilities. The petition was referred to the Committee to consider and report their opinion what the King might do with regard to the regularity of admitting appeals from the plantations (PC 2/78/191). The Committee reported that it found that appeals were by constant instruction to be made within fourteen days after sentence; if refused, application could be made to the King in Council. In the instant case it did not appear that application had been made within fourteen days. It therefore advised that it would be of ill consequence to allow appeals after so long a time and that the petition should be dismissed. This was accordingly ordered (PC 2/78/194). 64 In Denny v. Cleland over four years lapsed between the judgment complained of and the admission of the appeal (PC 2/83/362; PC 2/84/320, 336). In Stanton v. Thompson an appeal was admitted in 1756 eight years after judgment below (PC 2/105/34, 4 2 )- 65 Stanton v. Thompson (Case of Respondent, Add. MS., 36,218/3). 66 In Peterson v. Peterson a petition for leave to appeal was transmitted to the Committee in 1697 to examine and report the state of the matter with its opinion as to what should be done for petitioner's relief (PC 2/76/610). But the Committee proceeded to admit and hear the appeal without any report back to the Council Board (PC 2/77/37, 213). Cf. Lason v. Sergeant where the parties were to come prepared to argue the appeal in chief if upon doleance hearing an appeal should be admitted (PC 2/81/111-12). 67 See Adams v. Sturge (Case of Respondent, Add. MS., 36,217/178); Dunbar v. Shephard (Case of Respondent, L.C., Law Div.). In this case respondent alleged that there was nothing in the record to show an appeal was ever taken below. But this objection, allegedly fatal if insisted upon, was waived. The waiver proved unwise for judgment was reversed (PC 2/103/337, 344)- 68 In Powell v. Hughes, leave to appeal from Jamaica chancery orders of August 2 and 5, J755. was petitioned for at the same time as an appeal from an August 15 order was entered (PC 2/105/274). To this application Hughes asserted that "there is no instance of such an appeal, as is now prayed, the respondent putting their whole cause upon the appellant's production of any such; the rule being to allow appeals here, when the party has prayed and been refused one below which is called a doleance. But the allowing appeals in the manner now prayed, would be productive of the most mischievous consequences, as a designing man might by omitting to