ryland in 1632 and
1635; the Chancellor of London was requested to examine the parties in
a controversy over a living in St. Christopher in 1637; many commercial
questions were referred to special bodies of merchants or others holding
official positions. In 1631 a complaint regarding interlopers in Canada
was referred to a committee of three, Sir William Becher, clerk of the
Council; Serj. (Wm.) Berkeley, afterward governor of Virginia, and
Edward Nicholas, afterward clerk of the Council, and a new committee
in which Sir William Alexander and Robert Charlton took the place of
Becher and Nicholas was appointed in 1632.[21] Berkeley, Alexander,
and Charlton were known as the Commissioners for the Gulf and River of
Canada and parts adjacent, and were all directly interested in Canadian
trade.[22] These committees received references from the Council,
summoned witnesses and examined them, and made reports to the Council.
Similarly, the dispute between Vassall and Kingswell was referred on
March 10, 1635, to Edward Nicholas and Sir Abraham Dawes for examination
and report, and because it was an intricate matter, consumed
considerable time and required a second report.[23] Again a case
regarding the Virginia tobacco trade was referred to the body known
as the "Commissioners of Tobacco to the Lords of the Privy Council,"
appointed as early as 1634 and itself a subcommittee having to do with
tobacco licenses, customs, and trade. The members were Lord Goring,
Sir Abraham Dawes, John Jacob, and Edmund Peisley. The first specific
references to "subcommittees," _eo nomine_, are of date May 23, May 25,
and June 27, 1638. The last named reference mentions the receipt by the
Privy Council of a "certificate" or report from Sir John Wolstenholme
and Sir Abraham Dawes "unto whom their lordships had formerly referred
the hearing and examining of complaints by John Michael in the Laconia
case."[24] As the earlier reference of May 23 had to do with the estate
of Sir Thomas Gates and that of May 25 to a Virginia matter, it is
evident that this particular subcommittee had been appointed some time
before May 23, 1638, and that the only thing new about it was the
term "subcommittee" as applied to such a body. This conjecture seems
reasonable when we note that Wolstenholme and Dawes had already served
on the commission for Virginia and were thoroughly conversant with
plantation affairs, while Dawes was also a member of the tobacco
commission and