view, to be deemed a writ of error, must, as the case required, have been, in some 
instances, the method of proceeding. 
Furthermore, it was argued that such writs of error should lie only from 
courts of law. But they had been allowed from "proceedings on the equity side 
of the Exchequer, where the answer was made upon oath, replication and rejoinder 
filed, witnesses examined on interrogatories and all the proceedings 
the same as in Chancery." The writ was really "in the nature of an appeal from 
a gravamen though improperly called a writ of error." The Governor and 
Council, who well knew the nature of the writ and the constitution of the 
island, had unanimously overruled this objection to the propriety of the writ, 
and appellants had not even appealed from this part of the determination 
below. 160 The outcome of the appeal was an affirmance of the judgment of 
the Court of Errors. 161 Since the opinion altering the instructions was rendered 
by the same counsel only a few weeks after this argument in Clar\e and 
Gosling v. Smith, it is a reasonable inference that the words "in cases of error" 
were deliberately omitted from the draft of revised instructions to accord with 
the crown law officers' conceptions of the realities of colonial practice. 
With this allegation as to the nature of error jurisdiction in Barbados in 
mind, let us examine the effects of the 1753 alteration in the gubernatorial 
instructions. As already stated, the usual instructional article provided for 
appeals "in cases of error" from the courts in the province to the Governor 
and Council in civil causes where the amount involved exceeded ,£3OO sterling 
162 On December 18, 1753, circular instructions were sent out that the 
Governor, on application being made for that purpose, "permit and allow 
appeals from any of the courts of common law" in the province to the Governor 
and Council subject to the previous minimal requirements. For that purpose 
the Governor was to issue a writ "in the manner which has been usually 
accustomed," returnable before the Governor and Council who were to proceed 
to hear and determine such appeal. 163 The preamble to the circular instruction 
justified the new form by stating that the method prescribed by the instructions 
relative to appeals in cases of error had by periodic conciliar regulations 
become defective and improper. 164 
We have suggested that the significance of the alteration for our purposes 
lies in the omission of the confining clause "in cases of error." Did this omission 
extend the appellate jurisdiction of the Governor and Council beyond the 
scope of writ of error proceedings to review of both law and facts ? 
160 Case of Respondent (L.C., Law Div.) 
lex PC 2/103/355, 408. 
163 Ibid., #453. 
16i Ibid. 
102 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #448.