hearing and report thereon by the Committee, an Order in Council issued accordingly. If appearance were inordinately delayed, appellant moved the Committee for a speedy hearing. The Committee might then peremptorily order that the appeal be heard on a certain date or that if respondent failed to enter an appearance or attend within forty days of service, the appeal would be heard ex parte. 77 Several such orders might be necessary to bring an appeal on to a hearing. Conversely, if appellant lagged in prosecution of the appeal, respondent might petition the Council or move the Committee for dismissal for nonprosecution. Usually the Committee thereupon limited a time for prosecution or for showing cause, with threat of dismissal for noncompliance. 78 Entry of an appearance might be a condition precedent for successful application for such dismissal. 79 Since Channel Islands appeals were putatively to be heard during a certain period, delay might occasion the wait of a year for a hearing. 80 No Royal Exchange or coffee house posting of summonses appears to have been employed. But dismissals for nonprosecution were not numerous, considering the large number of incomplete appeals. After such dismissal there remained the possibility of a hearing on the merits upon cause shown. 81 Much of the conciliar time devoted to Channel Islands affairs was concerned with doleances, usually complaining of the denial of an appeal by the Royal Courts below. Doleances, in contrast to appeals, were presented in the first instance to the Council Board by which they were as a matter of routine referred to the Committee. 82 The Committee in the normal case then ordered the doleance sent to the bailiff and jurats of the island of origin to answer. 83 "See Bichard v. Norman (PC 2/85/226); Hilgrove v. Dumaresq (PC 2/86/83, 287); de Saumarez v. de Saumarez (PC 2/87/227, 479); Rex v. Guerdain (PC 2/91/497); Naftell v. Corbin (PC 2/88/269); Stephens v. Fiott (PC 2/93/267). 78 Mauger v. Rondel (PC 2/84/339); Cartault v. Rex (PC 2/86/450); Dumaresq v. Dumaresq (PC 2/101/467). But cf. le Hardy v. Guerdain where the appeal was dismissed immediately upon Committee consideration of the petition for dismissal (PC 2/87/322, 363, 366). "See Remon v. de Carteret (PC 2/86/165); le Hardy v. Dauvergn (PC 2/98/247). 80 See Le Couteur v. Pipon (PC 2/80/386). 81 In Baillehache v. Le Hardy appellant petitioned for relief against the dismissing order and a rehearing. The Committee first sent the petition to the Royal Court to answer, then advised that summonses be issued for a rehearing. Such rehearing never took place, despite the Order in Council following the Committee report (PC 2/81/484, 510; PC 2/82/313, 319; PC 2/83/79). 82 In re Dobree (PC 2/77/221); In re Bowden (PC 2/84/19); In re Alez (PC 2/85/400); In re Priaulx (PC 2/86/154); In re Tremallier (PC 2/87/359); In re Brock (PC 2/89/277); In re Dumaresq (PC 2/92/115); In re Touzel (PC 2/98/365); In re Nicolle (PC 2/102/ 306); In re Giffard (PC 2/104/469). Seemingly doleances, like appeals, had to be prosecuted (presented to the Council) within a year or year and a day of the judicial action complained of; see De Beauvoir v. Fourtell (PC 2/86/396). 83 In re Bowden (PC 2/84/271); In re Alez (PC 2/85/404); In re Priaulx (PC 2/86/ 159); In re Tremallier (PC 2/87/364); In re Brock (PC 2/89/305); In re Dumaresq (PC 2/92/122); In re Touzel (PC 2/98/384); In re Nicolle (PC 2/102/338); In re Giffard (PC 2/104/493). But on the 1708 doleance of Le Breton the Council Board not only referred the doleance to the Committee but also