ing an exemplification of the proceedings. 135 In several Isle of Man appeals, 
application was made for conciliar direction that appellants be given copies 
of the proceedings. 136 From Jersey it was complained in a 1773 pamphlet that 
the Royal Court refused to enroll their judgments, thus preventing injured 
parties from obtaining a copy for appeal to the King in Council. 137 In the 
gestation period of the Stamp Act it was proposed that no appeal should lie to 
England or to the colonial superior courts unless the proceedings in the cause 
were properly stamped. 138 But this provision failed of incorporation in the 
final enactment. 139 
In most appeals two counsel (barristers) appeared for appellants and two 
for respondents at the Committee hearing; 14 ° in some only one counsel was 
retained. 141 As a matter of routine each counsel was permitted an argument 
in chief plus a rebuttal. 142 In argument of interlocutory motions, or in ex 
parte hearings on the merits, or dismissals for nonprosecution, solicitors or 
attorneys usually appeared before the Committee. 143 The use of counsel was 
the exceptional case. In some of the earlier cases, particularly from the Channel 
Islands, the parties themselves were heard in addition to counsel. 144 Usually 
135 PC 2/97/325-28. 
136 See Jackson v. McGuire (PC 2/88/617); 
Sedden v. Christian (PC 2/92/531); cf. 
Stevenson v. Stevenson (PC 2/104/458). 
137 Anecdotes Relative to the Island of Jersey 
(Southampton, 1773). 9-i° ( Soc - } a - Libo 
manuscript copy dated 1767 is in the 
Lempriere MSS, Rozel Manor Library, Jersey, 
CI. 
138 To enforce the provision some court officer 
or crown inspector was to certify the proceedings, 
which certificate was to be affixed to 
the petition of appeal (Add. MS, 36,226/357)- 
A 1764 plan of a Stamp Act for the colonies 
drawn up by Thomas Whately proposed that 
duties on the papers incident to proceedings in 
colonial superior courts should be threequarters 
of the duty paid in England, in inferior 
courts one-half. But appeals were to be 
excluded from this reduction, as they were 
seldom brought unless for delay or vexation 
or where considerable property was involved 
(Hughes, The English Stamp Duties, 1664- 
1764, Appendix, 56 EHR 262). Cf. the opinion 
of Governor Pinfold of Barbados that extension 
of the stamp duties to the colonies "if 
it should prove any check to tire very litigious 
temper that prevails in these parts, will be 
the happiest circumstance that ever happened 
for the West Indies" (MS Pinfold Letters, 
1764-66j 5). 
139 5 George 111, c. 12. 
140 See the conciliar "cases" in the above collections, 
supra, n. 118. No more than two 
counsel could be heard for one party; see 
Wm. Samuel Johnson MSS, Mohegan Indians, 
#41- 
1 41 See Sedden v. Christian (Add. MS, 36,216/ 
87); McSparran v. Hassard (Add. MS, 
36,217/1); Arcedeckne v. Hall (ibid., 185); 
le Vesconte v. Pinel (Add. MS, 36,218/49, 
51); Chollett v. Mackey (ibid., 135); Bayly 
v. Jackson (ibid., 207); Hearn v. Gapper and 
Young (ibid., 236). It is possible that counsel 
appeared whose names were not signed to 
the cases. 
1 42 See Charles Yorke's notes on appeal hearings 
scattered through Add. MSS, 36,217-20. 
For a good specimen of a conciliar argument 
(Morris v. Le Gay, Barbados, 1730), see 
Wedderburn MS., M 5/57-89 (reversing volume) 
(Lincoln's Inn). For the Cases of the 
parties see Add. MS, 36,216/24-27. The case 
concerned Barbados application of the rule in 
Shelley's Case. 
1 43 See inter alia Welsh v. Manning (PC 2/ 
97/409); Richardson v. Beckford (PC 2/101/ 
203); Kenner v. Ball (PC 2/101/397); Gordon 
v. Hill (PC 2/105/256); Wetherby v. Rait 
(PC 2/107/430); Woollery v. Lousada (PC 
2/113/482-83); Palmer v. Trecothick (PC 2/ 
118/150). 
i« De la Garde v. Guerdain (PC 2/80/379); 
de la Cloche v. le Ray (ibid.); le Sbirell v.