823 But these figures are not representative of ordinary appeals. 
The protracted appeals necessary to settle the meaning of "orthodox minister" 
in a Rhode Island grant 324 cost clergyman McSparran £354/17/%, without 
arriving at definitive settlement. 325 Respondents in McSparran v. Hazzard 
were saddled with a bill. 320 Successfully defending a late appeal from 
Pennsylvania cost ,fi2s/i5. 327 The bill of solicitor Paris for obtaining dismissal 
of a 1738 Rhode Island appeal for nonprosecution came to 328 
In 1766 the bill of costs on a doleance from Jersey amounted to £g6/^/6. 529 
COMMITTEE PERSONNEL 
Before inquiring into the matter of enforcement of the Orders in Council 
issued on appeals, let us examine the composition of the appellate body. Since 
the Committee was a committee of the whole Council, it was possible for any 
privy councilor to attend at appeal hearings. In practice, however, promiscuous 
attendance was unusual; committees hearing appeals in chief or interlocutory 
motions were usually composed of the Lord President of the Council, the 
presiding officer, afforced by one or two judicial, and several lay figures. The 
pattern of conciliar attendance varied with the available personnel and attendant 
circumstances. 330 Under William 111 and Anne, Chief Justices Holt 
and Parker were regular in attendance, and Trevor was infrequently present. 
Among the laymen, Vernon and Hedges, principal Secretaries of State, and 
Stamford, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, were most constant. Under 
George I the Master of the Rolls assumed the burden of committee duty for 
the judicial members, with Chief Justices King, Eyre, and Raymond less 
regular in attendance. Among the nonjudicial councilors, the Bishop of 
London achieved the best record, while the Lord Privy Seal, Townshend (principal 
Secretary of State), Westmoreland, Sunderland, Islay, and Portmore were 
among the more regular attendants. 
During the early days of George 11, Eyre and Raymond continued spasmodic 
attendance, while Hardwicke, in his short tenure as Chief Justice, attended 
devotedly. However, after 1737 Chief Justice Willes proved a committee main- 
323 5 MS Mass. Archives (Colonial, 1728-74), 
111-14. Further costs accredited to an intended 
intervention o£ the claims of John Tufton 
Mason brought the total to £ 351/9/2. 
324 See infra, p. 327. 
325 Fulham Palace MSS, N.Y., N.J., R. 1., and 
N.H. Box, #33- 
326 Ibid., #19. 
327 10 MS Penn Letter hoo\s, 88. The appeal 
was Fothergill v. Stover; see PC 2/111/83, 
199; PC 2/112/126, 167. 
328 MS R.I. Law Cases, 1739-40, #25. For 
the conciliar course of the appeal, Martin v. 
Gardiner, see PC 2/94/551, 571, 593. 
329 See the bills of Nicholas Fiott on the 
doleances of Philip Laurens and of Philip de 
Gruchy (Fiott MSS, Soc. Jer. Lib.). 
330 M uc h larger committees might be assembled 
to transact administrative matters. 
At three hearings of complaints against Governor 
Hunter of New Jersey, 18, 21, and 19 
members, respectively, attended (PC 2/86/ 
224—26).