The complexities of these cases and of the two closely related cases, Bradley v Bontein (JAM_1743_02) and Bennett v Bontein (JAM_1743_03), are considerable, but the underlying issue is clear enough. On 24 Dec. 1740, the Privy Council issued an order exempting from the Navigation Acts imports of provisions for the fleet and forces in Jamaica. (For the maneuverings within the government with regard to this order, in which Archibald Bontein and Governor Trelawney are mentioned, see APC v.3 [490].) Bontein, the deputy naval officer in Jamaica, apparently with backing from Mathew Concanen, the advocate-general of Jamaica, and Governor Trelawney, seems to have taken the position that only an act of parliament could override another act of parliament. In any case, Bontein seized three ships, the King’s Meadow (Mansfield v Concanen), the Dolphin (Bradley v Bontein), and the Mercury (Bennett v Bontein), all of which, their owners subsequently alleged, were carrying provisions for the fleet. John Gray and Benjamin Maynard, merchants of the notorious Port Royal in Jamaica, claimed, as agents of the Commissioners for the Victualling of His Majesty’s Navy, possession of the cargo of the ships, which Bontein had also seized. Bontein was supported by the courts in Jamaica; and the owners, and Gray and Maynard, took their appeals to the Privy Council.

In the meantime (on 2 Feb. 1742), the commissioners had filed with the Privy Council what are called memoranda, which later were reformulated as a petition or a complaint to the Council, in which they outlined the legal position apparently taken by Bontein and asked whether they should seek redress in parliament or whether the Privy Council should order Bontein to desist. The Council did neither, but referred the matter to “the Duke of Newcastles office from whence the said Papers came,” a reference, presumably, to Newcastle in his capacity as Secretary of State.

Once the appeals arrived, the Privy Council could not ignore them, though the record raises the question of whether the jurisdiction actually lay in the Admiralty. Eventually (in 1748), the Committee heard all the appeals, with results quite favorable to the appellants, as indicated in the reports of the cases.

The clearest indication of what the cases, and who the parties, were is found in the style of the printed case of respondents:

Thomas Mansfield, late Master or Commander of the Ship King’s Meadow, alias the Cork Galley, alias the Young Catharine, alias Lamosa Catalina, in Behalf of Himself and of George Fitzgerald of London, Merchant, and others, Owners of the said Ship } Appellant. His Majesty’s Advocate-General of the Island of Jamaica [Mathew Concanen], and Thomas Bontein Esquire, Naval-Officer of the said Island } Respondents.

John Gray and Benjamin Maynard, Agents to the Commissioners for Victualling his Majesty’s Forces and Navy in America, in an action of Trover touching the above Ships } Plaintiffs in Error and Appellants. The said Thomas Bontein, who as well for his Majesty, and his Excellency Edward Trelawney, Esquire, Governor of the said Island, as for himself in this Behalf, prosecutes } Defendant in Error, and Respondent.

Henry Bradley, late Master of the Ship Dolphin, and the said John Gray and Benjamin Maynard, } Plaintiffs in Error, and Appellants. The said Thomas Bontein, who as well, &c. } Defendant in Error and Respondent.

John Bennett, late Master of the Ship Mercury, and the said John Gray and Benjamin Maynard, } Plaintiffs in Error, and Appellants. The said Thomas Bontein, who as well, &c. } Defendant in Error and Respondent.

Stephen Bisse, Thomas Revell, Thomas Brerton, William Thompson, William Hay, Thomas Tresusis, and Richard Hall, Esquires, Commissioners for Victualling his Majesty’s Navy } Petitioners and Complainants. His Excellency Edward Trelawney, Esquire, and the said Thomas Bontein } Respondents. [This following entry is in much larger type:]

The CASE of his Excellency Edward Trelawney, Esquire, one of the Respondents to the last-mentioned Petition; and of his Majesty’s Advocate-General of the said Island of Jamaica, one of the Respondents to the first-mentioned Appeal, and of Thomas Bontein, Esquire, Respondent to the said Petition, and to all the above-mentioned Appeals.

It will be noted that the actions involving the ships under the Navigation Acts were qui tam actions. Bontein and Trelawney were not simply doing their duty as they understood it. The final case before the Privy Council about this matter, Bontein v Trelawney (JAM_1753_02), deals with the settling of accounts between the two, the details of which need not concern us here.

CD