judicial judgments. In Price v. Warren, from Barbados, appellant sought 
alternatively an appeal from a 1720 chancery decree or repeal of a confirmatory 
act. 497 Upon representation of the Board, both appeal and repeal were denied 
498 In this connection it should be remembered that these disallowances 
were advised upon the basis of opinions by the Attorney General, the Solicitor 
General, and the Board's own legal adviser. 
Turning from the Board of Trade to consideration of other officers and 
bodies ancillary to the Council Board, we find some misapprehension as to 
the part of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General in the appellate 
process. 499 There was no regular reference of appeals to these crown officers. 
In some appeals and doleances the Committee consulted the law officers on 
preliminary questions of prerogative or jurisdiction, but not as to the merits. 500 
The same misapprehension is evident as to the part of the English judges. 501 
The records themselves show that the judges assumed little importance in 
appellate procedure, except in their capacity of privy councilors. 502 
Few of the other administrative bodies were interested in the appellate process. 
The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury might be concerned when 
crown financing of an appeal was in question, 503 or the Lords Commissioners 
of the Customs in an appeal concerning enforcement of the Navigation 
Acts. 504 In some instances the Duke of Newcastle, as principal Secretary of 
State, acted upon complaints as to denial of justice 505 or made recommendations 
in petitionary matters more properly cognizable at law. 506 This intervention 
was regarded with disfavor by the Board of Trade, 507 but was symptomatic 
of the declining influence of that body during the third decade of the 
century. 508 The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty were active in asserting 
the right of the colonial vice-admiralty courts to act in matters properly 
497 PC 2/99/481. 
im PC 2/100/526-28. 
499 See Andrews' statement {Guide to Manuscript 
Materials for the History of the United 
States to 178s in the British Museum [1908], 
173) that the Committee "heard the parties 
in the person of their learned counsel, sent a 
copy of the petition to the crown lawyers or 
the judges of the superior court in England." 
600 Supra, pp. 172, 225, 227. 
501 See Andrews, op. cit., supra, n. 499 at 173. 
502 Chief Justice King commented upon a Barbados 
act regulating judicial procedure {CSP, 
Col., 1720-21, #428). A Massachusetts address 
concerning appeals in seizure cases under 
,£3OO was referred to Chief Justice Holt 
{ibid., 1699, #818). Various judges of the 
High Court of Admiralty were consulted on 
the question of jurisdiction over vice-admiralty 
court appeals. Supra, p. 177 et seq. 
603 See infra, p. 436. See also Calendar of 
Treasury Booths and Papers, 1735-38, 310-11, 
418, 426; ibid., 1739-41, 480, 489, 501, 506. 
504 See supra, p. 139. One duty of the Solicitor 
of the Customs was to prosecute appeals to 
the Privy Council; see Calendar of Treasury 
Boo\s and Papers, 1729-30, 103; ibid., 1739— 
41, 198, 432. 
505 See the Duke of Newcastle upon the complaint 
of Sarah Houblon (CSP, Col., 1724-2s, 
#489). For the answer see ibid., #648. 
506 Ibid., 1726-27, #154, 174, 236, 447; ibid., 
1728-29, #419; ibid., 1733, #174. 
507 See ibid., 1726-27, #682. 
508 Ibid., 1728-29, x-xi.