authority to create a judicial system. 333 A year later a charter was procured by 
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, but again no provision was made 
for appeals in private causes. 334 This liberality is the more surprising in that 
the prevalent attitude of the English administrators favored extension of control 
over colonial possessions, and the conduct of the Massachusetts Bay 
colony was again the subject of complaint. 335 Various theories have been advanced 
to justify the liberal character of these charters, including recognition 
of the loyalty of these colonies, the character of the agents who secured the 
grants, court influence, and a scheme of the Earl of Clarendon to isolate Massachusetts 
336 Lack of administrative foresight and adherence to established 
forms probably account for the absence of appeal reservations. Curiously 
enough, in spite of the absence of a general appeal reservation in the Rhode 
Island charter, a 1666 colony "Act for the Calling of Special Courts" saved 
aggrieved parties "the liberty of appealing to His Majesty in Council in England, 
as in other cases is usually allowed." 337 
The above Rhode Island charter is a principal exhibit supporting the theory 
of an animus against Massachusetts, for although the absence of a general 
appeal clause appeared to foreclose recourse by private litigants to the crown, 
the colony itself was granted the right to appeal to the King in all public disputes 
with other New England colonies. 338 The genesis of this provision may 
have been the boundary disputes surrounding the charter inception or, as 
suggested, a possible safeguard against an unpopular and truculent neighbor, 
Massachusetts Bay. 339 It is arguable that the operation of this clause would in 
effect amend the charters of contiguous colonies. For it would force an ad- 
333 1 Thorpe, op. cit., 533. In the instructions 
of the General Court of Connecticut to John 
Winthrop, who was dispatched to obtain the 
Connecticut charter, it was desired that the 
patent "comprehend all the rights, priviledges, 
authority and imunities that are granted in the 
Massachusetts Colonyes Pattent" (1 Pub. Rec. 
Col. Conn., 580). 
334 6 Thorpe, op. cit., 3211-22. There is some 
evidence that the colonists at the time of the 
granting of the charter conceived of King's 
Bench in England as the proper appellate tribunal. 
In October, 1662, John Hodson 
moved the General Court of Trials for an 
appeal to be granted him to the King's Bench 
in England in a cause with Peter Tollman and 
Ann Elton. The court, seeing no cause to grant 
the motion, referred Hodson to the next Court 
of Commissioners (2 Rec. Ct. Trials Col. Prov. 
Plant. [1922], 11). But no application was 
made at said court (1 MS R.I. Col. Rec, 170). 
335 3 Osgood, op. cit., c. vi. 
336 Kaye, English Colonial Administration 
under Lord Clarendon (i9°s)> 47-s°- 
337 Acts and Laws Col. R.I. (1719). 17-18. 
338 The clause in question provided that "in 
all matters of publique controversy which may 
fall out between our Colony of Providence 
Plantations, and the rest of our Colonies in 
New England itt shall and may be lawfull to 
and for the Governour and Company of the 
sayd Colony of Providence Plantations to make 
their appeales therein to vs, our heirs and successors, 
for redresse in such cases, within this 
our realme of England" (6 Thorpe, op. cit., 
3221). 
339 For an account of these boundary disputes 
with Connecticut see Kaye, op. cit., 44-46; 2 
Andrews, Colonial Period, 43 et seq.; 1 Rec. 
Col. R. 1., 518. The context of the clause in 
question supports the first theory.