ticc it was advisable to come prepared with copies of pertinent colonial acts under colony seal; printed collections were subject to suspicion and possible rejection. 156 In effect colonial acts were treated as private acts of Parliament. 157 Interpretation of colonial acts might blindly follow English statutory analogies,lsB although in a few instances persons acquainted with colonial practices and conditions were called upon to supply the Committee with information requisite to an enlightened report. 159 It was allegedly a procedural rule that errors not assigned below could not be raised before the Committee. 160 In the nineteenth century such restriction was justified on the score that if objections initially advanced before the Privy Council had been moved below, they might have been explained by local law or usage in cases where such laws varied from English standards. 161 Whether this constituted the rationale of the putative limitation during the period under consideration is not evident. It was also contended in the early nineteenth century that the Privy Council was bound to take judicial notice of the law below. 162 But it is more likely that in the eighteenth century the law of dominions of the crown outside the realm might be regarded as in the nature of foreign law and necessary of proof. 163 We have already seen the objection to printed collections of colonial statutes. 164 Further, a party might be called upon to show that certain acts of Parliament were in force in the colony in which the cause of action arose. 165 156 See endorsement by William Samuel Johnson on cover of Case of Respondent, Freebody v. Brenton, Columbia Univ. Law Lib. Cf. Wm. Samuel Johnson MS Diary, sub March 15, 1769 (Conn. Hist. Soc). 157 See 1 Morgan, Essays upon the haw of Evidence, etc. (1789), 62. 158 In Tabb v. Edmundson, a 1763 Virginia appeal, Lord Mansfield, interpreting a 1705 Virginia act for the distribution of intestate estates (3 Hening, Stat, at Large Va., 371) said that half blood by the mother was equally to be let in under that act as under 22 and 23 Charles 11, c. 10, and 1 James 11, c. 17 (Add. MS, 36,218/249). Cf. the strong, but overruled, contention of respondent that no rule could be drawn from the practice in England under die aforesaid statutes (ibid., 250-51). 159 In Holder v. Coates, merchants trading to Barbary were consulted as to whether the Moors were considered enemies of England (PC 2/76/573). In Dering v. Packer, Jared Ingersoll was consulted as to colonial currency practices (Ingersoll Papers, 9 Papers New Haven Col. Hist. Soc, 241-42). 160 Waldoe v. Waldoe, a 1735 Massachusetts appeal, resulted in dismissal, "there being no exception taken in the courts below for want of parties" (PC 2/93/115, 143). This was alleged as a general rule of conciliar practice in Francia v. Hope, an East India appeal (Case of Respondent, Add. MS, 36,217/91). Cf. Mackinnen v. DeWitt (Antigua, 1719) where appellant petitioned for an assignment of errors beyond the general assignment made on die appeal below by respondent (PC 1/46). There is no evidence in the Council register that this request was granted (PC 2/86/307, 381). 161 See the Master of the Rolls in Frankland v. M'Gusty (1 Knapp, 274, 298). 162 See Baron Parke in Sumboochunder Chowdry v. Naraini Dibeh and Ramkishor (3 Knapp, 55, 61). 163 p or me necess ity of proof of foreign laws see Fremoult v. Dedire (1 Peere Williams, 429). For evidence that in some respects the plantations were regarded as foreign countries see King v. Speke (3 Sal\eld, 358); Colepepper's Case (1 Ventris, 349), in which treasons committed in North Carolina were regarded as "foreign treasons." 164 Supra, n. 156. 165 Gilligan v. Ramsey, whether the act for the