gner; of William
Helyar, whose woodland in Jamaica had been seized by Governor Lynch;
of John Rodney and his wife Frances, whose plantation in Nevis had
been seized by Governor Russell, a case destined to drag on for nearly
two years.

In recommending the appointment of governors and other officials,
passing upon colonial laws, scrutinizing nominations as of colonial
councillors, corresponding with the governors, organizing an efficient
system of communication and supervision in all matters touching trade
and commerce, and in making reports to the King in Council,--in short,
in the control and management of colonial affairs, the Council of 1672
placed the British colonial policy on a broader and more comprehensive
foundation than had hitherto been laid and inaugurated a more thorough
system of colonial control than had been established by any of its
predecessors. It is doubtful if even the Lords of Trade or the Board of
Trade surpassed the Councils of 1670 and 1672 in enthusiasm, loyalty,
or dispatch of business.

On December 21, 1674, Charles II revoked the commission of the Council,
and plantation affairs under their cognizance thus being "left loose and
at large" were "restored to their accustomed channel of a Committee of
the Privy Council," that is, to the Committee of the Board appointed for
matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations.[11] The reasons for
this step are of course to be found in the first instance in the fall
of Shaftesbury from power the summer before, but that event is not in
itself a sufficient explanation of the change. At least it is worthy of
remark that the dissolution of the Council took place many months after
Shaftesbury's dismissal. Probably a further cause is to be found in the
widespread demand for economy and retrenchment. The Council of 1672
cost the King nearly L8,000 a year; the Committee of the Privy Council
cost the King nothing for the services of its members, although its
contingent expenses ran higher than had those of any previous board,
amounting to between L275 and L400 a quarter from 1676 to 1687 and L250
and L300 from 1689 to 1696.[12]

Probably a greater reason for the dissolution of the Council of 1672
is to be found in the dissatisfaction which existed with the system of
advisory and independent bodies. Povey expressed the matter well when
he wrote:

"His Ma^{tie} since his happy Restoraton, rightly considering
of how great Consequence his foreign Pla